Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[Floivanus]

My posts bashing the NRA generally are legion. (I will admit they get things right on occasion, mostly by accident.) I never had any confidence that they'd fight this.

I'm a bit more surprised at the GOA. They say they have a lawsuit ready to go (or did), but I can't find any comment recently on it. (Although, I may be looking in the wrong place.)

Tim (MAC) posted a few weeks ago (facebook or instagram) with eric pratt, saying they are gonna file when it is actually finalized, its not gonna get filed until the rule ACTUALLY gets changed.

and the 500,000 estimate is Low, very low, ARF com was cranking out bumpfire devices on 3d printers for months after Vegas, on just that site, there’s publicly 2-5k that were made. People were submitting the files to print shops and having them made up as well.

the files are still out there for the AK and AR versions, not hard to find and not a long print either (from what I hear) not to mention the files for a full stock are out there as well...

it’s easily a million plus

 

[Ggreen]

Well. I'm done with the NRA. Hello GOA.

 

[MCgrease08]

Nice try, LaPierre.

The only way to change the NRA isn't to keep giving them money...

I don't give money to places I disagree with, the NRA shouldn't be treated differently. Yes, we all recognize they certainly are the big dog, and probably the most influential organization when it comes to 2A... but we shouldn't give up our morals for that.

I don't plan to give "Mom's Demand Action" any of my money in an effort to change them... and until the NRA gets their head out of their ass with regards to modern entertainment and culture, they won't be seeing any more of mine.

So then what is the best way to change the direction of the NRA? Because you say in one breath that it's full of old guys that trash gamers and don't care about things you do, but in another breath say you're against joining and expect younger more forward-thinking folks like Dana Loesch and Colion Noir to step up and push for change. Why only them but not you?

I'm not trying to be a ball buster here, I am generally curious what you think non-members should be doing to try and change the direction of the NRA. I resisted joining for several years. One reason was because I actually used to buy into the lefty nonsense that they were some evil, all powerful organization. Then I actually became a gun owner and started buying into the ideals of freedom, responsibility, civic duty that goes with it, and realized they don't fight nearly hard enough. But I guess I'm idealistic in that I don't think grumbling from the sidelines is all that helpful or effective at preserving gun rights. I felt the only way to effect change was to actually get involved, so I became a lifetime member.

So I'd love to hear what other tactics we should be exploring, because I'm genuinely open to all ideas.

ETA: And comparing the NRA to Moms Demand is just nonsense and is a terrible comparison. Their entire mission and platform is gun control. No one expects throwing money at them will get them to move off of that position.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So then what is the best way to change the direction of the NRA? Because you say in one breath that it's full of old guys that trash gamers and don't care about things you do, but in another breath say you're against joining and expect younger more forward-thinking folks like Dana Loesch and Colion Noir to step up and push for change. Why only them but not you?

I'm not trying to be a ball buster here, I am generally curious what you think non-members should be doing to try and change the direction of the NRA. I resisted joining for several years. One reason was because I actually used to buy into the lefty nonsense that they were some evil, all powerful organization. Then I actually became a gun owner and started buying into the ideals of freedom, responsibility, civic duty that goes with it, and realized they don't fight nearly hard enough. But I guess I'm idealistic in that I don't think grumbling from the sidelines is all that helpful or effective at preserving gun rights. I felt the only way to effect change was to actually get involved, so I became a lifetime member.

So I'd love to hear what other tactics we should be exploring, because I'm genuinely open to all ideas.

ETA: And comparing the NRA to Moms Demand is just nonsense and is a terrible comparison. Their entire mission and platform is gun control. No one expects throwing money at them will get them to move off of that position.

My whole issue is just the part about giving money to orgs that are against my interests. I didn't want to compare what they do, just the idea of where to place my money. Same with the earlier business analogy, just beliefs and funding those beliefs.

I honestly don't know, there's probably no way to change what they're doing. I have no idea how many people in the NRA believe what LaPierre says.

I'm probably being "selfish" when it comes to my thoughts on them. I know the bigger picture is what's important, and I'm sure the millions of members have the funding part handled. I support the NRA with the big picture. Morally, I can't support them with my cash. Like any other organization, they're not immune to being wrong. When they lazily deflect to things that have nothing to do with them... that gets my proverbial goat.

 

[Dosproduction]

So I was under the impression there was some kind of standing that the government can not ban things you already bought legally. Maybe make you register them but out right ban is that legal? Like expostfacto or something?

 

[Hohn]

I can achieve nearly 200rpm with my Geissele for short periods. Double taps are effortless.

I'm not willing to wage a battle for a bump stock gimmick.

 

[Floivanus]

I can achieve nearly 200rpm with my Geissele for short periods. Double taps are effortless.

I'm not willing to wage a battle for a bump stock gimmick.

Everything that has actually been proposed by your congress critters and the original proposal the ATF posted to the federal Register stated “rate increasing devices” give an anti-gun admin or congress that power and your geissele is getting the ban hammer

 

[T.Lex]

So I was under the impression there was some kind of standing that the government can not ban things you already bought legally. Maybe make you register them but out right ban is that legal? Like expostfacto or something?

Yes, that will be an open issue, and perhaps the main vulnerability.

Administratively, they aren't banning them. They are saying they need to be registered as NFA items. Except, there's no way to register the ones that have already been sold.

This isn't really a "takings" for which people get compensation from the government, because they are simply being told to destroy them.

Think of it like these new artificial drugs that people are getting hooked on. There wasn't a law about them, so they were legal. Once .gov figured out they were out there, and were considered "bad," then the laws were passed making them illegal. People had to either get rid of them or risk being arrested.

For purposes of ex post facto, they aren't saying the past conduct in purchasing or using unregistered bumpstocks was illegal. Instead, after the rule is final, any possession of them will be.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Man, all you guys are getting worked up. I don't know why. The NRA is going to save us...right?!?!?!

Earlier in the year, I questioned the NRA's stand and public comment and was promptly and strongly told I was a traitor to the 2nd amendment cause by questioning the NRA and not automatically supporting them. They knew what they were doing and nothing bad could ever happen. I was just too stupid to realize what was going on and to understand how the NRA was playing the game to spike this and kill it.

I was insulted by people locally and I was insulted by people over the internet about this. The NRA will never, never, never, ever let this happen. They will fight it tooth and nail and dirty and they will do whatever it takes to keep this from happening. Yet, to this very hour, their statement SUPPORTING GUN CONTROL is still on their website. Link to the quote below, please reference the 7th sentence in the paragraph.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

So many people told me "I know they said that, but that is not what they mean". Often the simplest answer is the correct answer....ie....the NRA just said what they meant. No 3D chess, no master strategy, no great plan.

So far in this thread BehindBlueI's is the only person I have seen who has been adult enough to admit that they might have been wrong. There are dozens here on INGO who were verbally aggressive and strongly adamant that the NRA would never betray us....strangely they are silent on this thread.

I find it interesting that there are those who were so readily willing to ignore the NRA's own words and lash out at others who question those words. They were so easily bold about bashing those who questioned the NRA's actions. Yet, they are not so easily bold to stand up for the 2nd amendment right now. Why is that? Why were some so willing to attack other 2nd amendment people but now they are silent when our rights are actually being taken away?

The NRA is only partly concerned with people's 2A rights, and are selective in supporting gun owners, depending on who you are, and what they can exploit politically.

 

[T.Lex]

Has anyone other than CNN reported this?

Getting more coverage today... Friday... the day typically reserved for covering stuff that is intended to get lost.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not everything. Just things that are important to me.

Business wants to ban guns? Fine, I'm done with you.

Business wants to ban certain websites from their wifi? Meh, don't care. I'll manage.

Business wants to ban certain words from being uttered on their property? Bye.

Business wants to ban booty shorts that say "JUICY" on them? I don't care, where's the beef jerky section?


I don't think it's effective to join an organization with the intention of changing it. No amount of pro-gun money is going to make MDA be pro-gun. I don't currently see how my pro-gun money will change what the NRA thinks about video games and other forms of media. That'll require the old people that still think that stuff to retire, and young-folk like Loesch and Noir to influence the direction of the org.

If you're saying and doing things that are against my interest, I'm not going to keep paying you to say and do those things.

Ah...OK. When you said this:

I don't give money to places I disagree with, the NRA shouldn't be treated differently.

Then you weren't intending to be as dogmatic as that statement read to me.

That's fair. We can't stop doing business with everyone just because we disagree with a policy or business decision here and there. But juxtaposing them with Moms Demand creates a very false dichotomy. As I stated above, the NRA is wrong on this acquiescence on the bump-stock issue. They're wrong on a number of other issues (that I can't think of right now) too. But I don't see them as immoral, like I do (probably) all the anti-gun groups out there pushing to restrict those rights.

 

[T.Lex]

That's fair. We can't stop doing business with everyone just because we disagree with a policy or business decision here and there. But juxtaposing them with Moms Demand creates a very false dichotomy. As I stated above, the NRA is wrong on this acquiescence on the bump-stock issue. They're wrong on a number of other issues (that I can't think of right now) too. But I don't see them as immoral, like I do (probably) all the anti-gun groups out there pushing to restrict those rights.

Out of curiosity, do you support the ACLU?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Out of curiosity, do you support the ACLU?

No. Do you?

 

[T.Lex]

No. Do you?

No. But I'd support them sooner than I'd support the NRA.

But your assessment of the NRA as not being immoral (pardon the double negative) but still pursuing the cause of protecting constitutional rights made it sound like you'd support the ACLU, too.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. But I'd support them sooner than I'd support the NRA.

But your assessment of the NRA as not being immoral (pardon the double negative) but still pursuing the cause of protecting constitutional rights made it sound like you'd support the ACLU, too.

I support the idea of an ACLU.

 

[cce1302]

Yeah I'm not going to send money to an organization that will help them promote gun control while telling them I want them to oppose it.

Last time they sent me a letter asking for money/membership I used the postage paid envelope to enclose a several page-long document explaining their historical support of gun control and why I would not be a member until they changed direction. THat was 5 or 6 years ago.

 

[Floivanus]

Yes, that will be an open issue, and perhaps the main vulnerability.

Administratively, they aren't banning them. They are saying they need to be registered as NFA items. Except, there's no way to register the ones that have already been sold.

This isn't really a "takings" for which people get compensation from the government, because they are simply being told to destroy them.

Think of it like these new artificial drugs that people are getting hooked on. There wasn't a law about them, so they were legal. Once .gov figured out they were out there, and were considered "bad," then the laws were passed making them illegal. People had to either get rid of them or risk being arrested.

For purposes of ex post facto, they aren't saying the past conduct in purchasing or using unregistered bumpstocks was illegal. Instead, after the rule is final, any possession of them will be.

The issue with them being considered NFA items is that there isn’t a single NFA item that a bumpstock fits the definition of. Legally defined it is not a machinegun. DOJ is saying that firing a rifle equipped with a bumpstock starts a firing sequence that is automatic, without pulling forward with your lead hand, at the correct pressure, there is no firing sequence, as well as that fact the trigger finger leaves the trigger after every shot.

the drafts that they have shared have stated “rate increasing devices” which can be interpreted to be magazines, 3 gun triggers, reduced pressure springs, etc. enjoy not being able to put a 3lb trigger into your Remington 700

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just out of curiosity, why is so much blame being placed on the NRA? They may be weak in handling the subject, but they aren't the ones with the actual power to make this come to pass. We all know who is responsible for this.....



























...Obama, lol

 

[Fargo]

For purposes of ex post facto, they aren't saying the past conduct in purchasing or using unregistered bumpstocks was illegal. Instead, after the rule is final, any possession of them will be.

How so? The text of 26 USC 5845 hasn't been amended.

 

[cbhausen]

Just out of curiosity, why is so much blame being placed on the NRA? They may be weak in handling the subject, but they aren't the ones with the actual power to make this come to pass. We all know who is responsible for this.....



























...Obama, lol

What the holy hell is the point of this??? What’s more important to you, seeing our rights get trampled or taking pleasure in who might or might not have been the one doing the trampling?

Grow up.

Disgusting...