Call for ban on 'bump stocks'

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?

How about we combine them and the answer is YES to both.

The bumpfire stock is just another item in the myriad of things that have developed in the firearms world via the natural order of progression in invention and technology, no different than night vison, excellent quality scopes, better performing ammunition or the GE mini gun or the Firestorm system or the Phalanx or any other part or accoutrement to any other system.

What we NEED TO BREAK, is the sheeple mindset that public opinion driven government officials can continually trash a codified protected right.

at will.
 
If the NFA and more recently the 1986 ban on new civilian transferable MG's didn't exist, neither would bump stocks.

A bump stock is in some small way a consolation prize for the loss of our MG rights. Since Miller was brought up in this thread, wouldn't Miller logically mean that the MG ban is unconstitutional, as MG's have military use?

Get off the banwagon and get on the unbanwagon.
 
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.

He was not firing a machine gun. Not even close. (I'm a combat veteran. I still hear them in my sleep) Maybe a very fast finger.

There may never be any certainty. The LVMPD won't release facts because it's all under "investigation." As a result, every time the Podunk Tribune publishes a by-lined story, the major networks jump on it and the rumors become newly released facts. Only to be sidelined after the next Tribune story.


I'm having trouble understanding the lack of LVMPD response to someone being shot on the 32nd floor of a major hotel. Nobody called the police???
Doesn't the fire dept have keys to override the elevators? Police should have been on that floor within 3 minutes.

Why did they wait for the SWAT team to breach the door? Does LVMPD still subscribe to the contain and negotiate strategy? I thought that went out the window with Columbine. Isn't kill the shooter the latest strategy. Police should have been through the hotel room door as soon as they got off the elevator.
Not a stellar performance by LVMPD or Sheriff Lombardo.

Back to bump stocks, I think the NRA is throwing them over the side to head off public outrage that will put their legislative agenda on full stop. Not enough NRA members own them and as others have mentioned, it's a real stretch to put them under the 2A umbrella. I was beginning to see some momentum for legalizing sound suppressors but I suspect support for anything NRA related will be muted for a long time.
 
Last edited:
He was not firing a machine gun. Not even close. (I'm a combat veteran. I still hear them in my sleep) Maybe a very fast finger.

There may never be any certainty. The LVMPD won't release facts because it's all under "investigation." As a result, every time the Podunk Tribune publishes a by-lined story, the major networks jump on it and the rumors become newly released facts. Only to be sidelined after the next Tribune story.


I'm having trouble understanding the lack of LVMPD response to someone being shot on the 32nd floor of a major hotel. Nobody called the police???
Doesn't the fire dept have keys to override the elevators? Police should have been on that floor within 3 minutes.

Why did they wait for the SWAT team to breach the door? Does LVMPD still subscribe to the contain and negotiate strategy? I thought that went out the window with Columbine. Isn't kill the shooter the latest strategy. Police should have been through the hotel room door as soon as they got off the elevator.
Not a stellar performance by LVMPD or Sheriff Lombardo.

Back to bump stocks, I think the NRA is throwing them over the side to head off public outrage that will put their legislative agenda on full stop. Not enough NRA members own them and as others have mentioned, it's a real stretch to put them under the 2A umbrella. I was beginning to see some momentum for legalizing sound suppressors but I suspect support for anything NRA related will be muted for a long time.

I think that their legislative agenda is already toast. We went from talking about CCW Reciprocity to more ****ing bans in 3.6 seconds! Timing really makes you wonder...

What is this MA? No, its a bunch of Dems (socialists and globalists) masquerading as Conservative republicans that have absolutely no backbone and cave on every single issue as soon as any heat is turned up on them by any Counterfeit News Network or drive-by media entity!
 
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.


You are thinking too much, it's not a philosophical question, no need for devils advocates or ATF to debate this shit.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's all. No tricks or hidden statements.

You can bear arms with bump stock, with AR-15, with phased plasma in 40megawatt range, with articulating didoes. People are so used to lying and small print and disclaimers that we can't effectively communicate anymore. Don't ****ing infringe that right. No NFA, no ATF, no taxes, no regulations ... taxpayers are so accustomed to take it from .gov that the only question they ask is "with or without lube?" Don't do it.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. End. Stop. Plain. Clear.
 
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.

^^^this...how many had bump fire stocks on them?...no one even knows which ones he used...why were there so many?...so he didn't have to reload, just grab another rifle or were they backups?...that doesn't seem right since he would have to redial in where he was aiming and in changing equipment he would lose time/accuracy...seems like they were put there for effect or to make a point...were there other shooters that left and took their gear with them before the cops arrived?...the story isn't even figured out and the law proposals are flying all over...smells of a setup or at least def a knee-jerk reaction or political grandstanding
 
Just got this in an email from GOAL:

Take Action: Please call your State Senator ASAP at the MA State House, 617-722-2000 and urge them to oppose the "bump stock" language passed today by the MA House in entirety.

Today, with no warning, the Massachusetts House of Representatives added an emergency amendment to their budget based on legislation filed by Representative David Linsky (D) Natick. They voted it through with only three no votes.

The language of the amendment was in three parts. The first outlines a ban on components that can be added to a firearm, rifle, or shotgun that could increase the rate of fire, “Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.”

The second part states that the bill, “shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”

The third part states, “The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.”

The budget, including this amendment, will be voted on by the Massachusetts State Senate tomorrow.

TAKE ACTION

Please call your State Senator ASAP at the MA State House, 617-722-2000 and urge them to oppose this language in entirety.

Notes:

The first part is loosely worded and doesn’t provide definition as to what rate of fire is. As written it will include any gun including a bolt-action rifle. In other words, if a bolt-action rifle is modified so that the bolt can operate with more ease, or less friction, it could be considered a felony.

The third part is extremely egregious, as it will give the state regulatory authority over the maintenance and enhancement of all firearms. Can you imagine what our Attorney General will do with this?
 
That's good that the preban mags are out.

Obviously extremely bad about how vague this is.

My money is on it winding up being completely vague and normal modifications to a rifle become another, "its a gray area, no one really knows but there's not really any way to enforce it either way".
 
My money is on it winding up being completely vague and normal modifications to a rifle become another, "its a gray area, no one really knows but there's not really any way to enforce it either way".
I agree. As much as Dimples the Tyrant might like to get into the inner workings of our guns just to see if she can screw us even more, how would she pull that off? She and her leftist minions know so little about guns that it would be laughable if she weren't the MA AG. [thinking]

There are plenty of important things to worry about in this Godforsaken leftist nanny state. Having Dimples the Tyrant peeking in to check out the inner workings of our guns is not one of them. [laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom