Why isn't a bump-fire stock an "assault weapon"?

[milktree]

It telescopes, right? Not much, but it does. The grip doesn't change length, but the length of pull (to the trigger) absolutely changes, or they wouldn't work.

So... why aren't bumpstocks already regulated under the '94 and '98 bans?

 

[Olympus Racing]

Oh boy

 

[pastera]

The stock doesn't telescope or fold.

The law says nothing about length of pull,so that is immaterial.

Sent from my SM-G360T using Tapatalk

 

[grey]

You make a good argument. Really. Someone needs to do something

 

[Olympus Racing]

Oh boy

 

[Oldarmy]

And where're off................

 

[Sweeney]

There should be a law!

 

[Uzi2]

You thinking of a run for the legislature?

 

[oldguy68]

But if you already regulate a firearm then a bump stock wouldn't need to be regulated?
Or is it because if you own a bump stock all by itself and don't own a firearm. How dangerous is it then?

You make a good point.

But we have a constitution that uses the words shall not be infringed in relation to the 2nd Amendment!

So your question could only be answered by using Liberal logic!

 

[headednorth]

SHAAAALLLNOOOTTTBEEEINFRIIINNGGEEDDDDDDDD1!!!!1!11!!!1

But we have a constitution that uses the words shall not be infringed in relation to the 2nd Amendment!

This should be all the explanation needed, but because people have accepted little bites out of the apple going back to the thirties, we've set a precedent where the law is overlooked regarding firearms as long as it makes some people feel better. The knee-jerk reaction to any restriction on any aspect of firearm ownership should be a resounding NO with zero compromise or further conversation.

eta- not trying to beat up on OP, but we should be asking why are assault weapons illegal? Why was a ban in 94 and 98 accepted?

 

[CRSIII]

More weird Stokholm Syndrome.

 

[Drix]

Whoo boy. Looks like a trap shooter just poked his head out of a hole.

Why isn't it an assault weapon? Because it's not a weapon, because it doesn't telescope, it doesn't change the length of pull to the trigger (which has nothing to do with an assault weapon), it just allows for unmitigated recoil.

 

[slap shot]

Make sure you don't tell the ATF.

 

[kevin9]

It telescopes, right? Not much, but it does. The grip doesn't change length, but the length of pull (to the trigger) absolutely changes, or they wouldn't work.

So... why aren't bumpstocks already regulated under the '94 and '98 bans?

Because a bump stock is not a firearm in and of itself, nor does it change the basic operation of a semi-automatic gun into any form of automatic gun that fires more than 1 bullet per trigger pull. Here's the ATF's ruling on bump stocks:

The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand.
Accordingly, we find that the "bump stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.

 

[Waher]

A bump stock is a variable geometry stock, so yes it is already banned under the 1998/2004 Mass AWB for post 1994 guns unless they don't have other 'evil' features. But you can still put them on pre 1994 guns. Our paste eating pant shitting virtue signaling legislators on Mt. Whoredom are mostly ignorant of the stocks already, for the most part, being banned by state law.

 

[glide]

A bump stock is a variable geometry stock, so yes it is already banned under the 1998/2004 Mass AWB for post 1994 guns unless they don't have other 'evil' features. But you can still put them on pre 1994 guns. Our paste eating pant shitting virtue signaling legislators on Mt. Whoredom are mostly ignorant of the stocks already, for the most part, being banned by state law.

Got a cite or case law on that one?

 

[CrackPot]

A bump stock is a variable geometry stock, so yes it is already banned under the 1998/2004 Mass AWB for post 1994 guns unless they don't have other 'evil' features. But you can still put them on pre 1994 guns. Our paste eating pant shitting virtue signaling legislators on Mt. Whoredom are mostly ignorant of the stocks already, for the most part, being banned by state law.

You have a future as a gun grabbing MA democraptic Attorney General


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Squire]

...nor is an assault weapon such until it is used to assault someone. It's not even a weapon until it's used to defend something. It's just a rifle until either of those circumstances arise.

 

[oldguy68]

...nor is an assault weapon such until it is used to assault someone. It's not even a weapon until it's used to defend something. It's just a rifle until either of those circumstances arise.

If we could only get 75 percent of America to understand this our country would stop fighting among ourselves!

Go Kentucky!

 

[Drix]

A bump stock is a variable geometry stock,

A what now?

 

[Waher]

A bump stock is essentially a collapsible stock with the adjustment locking mechanism left out. Since most post 94 guns that could use them already have detachable magazines and pistol grips, they are already effectively banned as a 3rd 'evil' feature by the existing AWB. Pinning a bump stock turns it into a conventional fixed stock by current law, but do that after the shit sandwich passes who knows.

 

[Boris]

A bump stock is essentially a collapsible stock with the adjustment locking mechanism left out. Since most post 94 guns that could use them already have detachable magazines and pistol grips, they are already effectively banned as a 3rd 'evil' feature by the existing AWB. Pinning a bump stock turns it into a conventional fixed stock by current law, but do that after the shit sandwich passes who knows.

The point of collapsable stock is to reduce OAL of the rifle for various "assaulty" reasons, like concealment, transport, tight spaces and to irritate **** Mora.

Bumpfire stock needs to "travel" just enough to reset trigger, i.e. fraction of an inch, like a 1/4 or even 1/8th on light triggers. The shorter the travel, the higher rate of fire may be achieved.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

THEY SHOULD BE LEGAL ! That is all.

 

[Waher]

My concern is that Maura, or some activist at EoPSS, is going to claim all adjustable collapsible stocks are 'bump' stocks if this Linsky's shit bill passes. They'd be counting on a prosecution where the public wouldn't understand the major difference between the designs.

 

[bill o]

A bump stock is essentially a collapsible stock with the adjustment locking mechanism left out. Since most post 94 guns that could use them already have detachable magazines and pistol grips, they are already effectively banned as a 3rd 'evil' feature by the existing AWB. Pinning a bump stock turns it into a conventional fixed stock by current law, but do that after the shit sandwich passes who knows.

The length of a bump fire stick is fixed. You cannot change its length because it is one solid piece of plastic.

 

[browncoat]

The length of a bump fire stick is fixed. You cannot change its length because it is one solid piece of plastic.

By that reasoning an m4 stock is fixed length

 

[Drix]

By that reasoning an m4 stock is fixed length

Maybe, maybe not. The length from grip to butt isn't changing.

 

[bill o]

By that reasoning an m4 stock is fixed length

In that case a loose A2 stock is a telescoping stock. How much do we throw common sense out the window to comply with this undefined term that appears in the law?

 

[browncoat]

In that case a loose A2 stock is a telescoping stock. How much do we throw common sense out the window to comply with this undefined term that appears in the law?

The extent to which we feel prosecution will extend

 

[bostonasphalt2]

This forum some days.....