Well hell, let's give'em an 80% lower ban too, if we're all good banning things that cheat the system?I can't predict what they'd be happy with. I just know they have the leverage on this issue, we don't.
Well hell, let's give'em an 80% lower ban too, if we're all good banning things that cheat the system?I can't predict what they'd be happy with. I just know they have the leverage on this issue, we don't.
What do we get out of this good faith? In my experience good faith is used in negotiations and I may be wrong, but I don't see any negotiating happening. Also, I've seen good faith used just to have the other party pull out the knife and stab it in the back.
Well hell, let's give'em an 80% lower ban too, if we're all good banning things that cheat the system?
Bump firing is no longer an expensive range trick. Every lunatic in the USA and many of its enemies now know that a bumpfire has value in inflicting fast damage and terror.
A stupid range toy.
It's an automatic weapon by any stretch of the imagination, if you look at the result rather than parsing the words of a specific law.
It should be banned.
Right. We understand this. They don't. I've seen enough bull**** and misinformation, though, to know explaining the difference isn't going to help.
600 rounds per minute and 700 rounds per minute are a difference that doesn't matter.
I didn't used to understand this. I've been around guns in my life, but I've not been a gun guy until just several years ago. 20 years ago I'd probably be one of the Fudds thinking we should ban these toys. But learning enough to understand the difference gives me a different perspective. I think we should have a platform to inform people just like we're informed. But the anti-gun zealots want to preserve the image of gun owners as they've built it over the past several years. That's really where the battle is, I think.
Yeah, I agree... good luck getting that message out to the masses though. Is it worth the effort?
If they were coming after magazine capacities or more practical AR modifications, I'd say yes.
My initial reaction to what the NRA stated is to be pissed off at them.
However, I've decided I'm reserving judgement on the NRA for now.
They asked he ATF to review a product that has twice been approved by the ATF under Obama. Nothing about that product has changed. In theory, the NRA has done this to show the public they are reasonable while knowing full well bumpfire stocks will probably not be banned.
They also requested national reciprocity be passed in the same statement. Trading bumpfire for that would be a win in my book.
I'll just have to see how this plays out. It's unfortunate that reality dictates we have to negotiate and trade like this to keep or gain rights.
Is the bump stock a firearm? Does it fall within the definition of "arms" in 2A?
Doesn't Heller come into play if you believe it to be an "arm"?
Do mechanical or electro-mechanical assistance devices incorporated into firearms change the character of a firearm from semi-auto to auto?
You know my position. I'm not going to appear to be a crazy gun advocate for something that is not a gun, is not designed as a real defensive tool and I would never use to protect my family and suggest you never do so either.
The real problem here: rich people.
Here is the NRA's actual joint statement of Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox.
https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/
They're basically seeing that regulations are coming for bump stocks so are kindof getting on board with "something" without being specific, while at the same time pushing national reciprocity.
I'll need time to think about trading bump stocks for national reciprocity. My kneejerk reaction is mixed.
Regards,
Doug
Important points:
Obama BATF reviewed & approved bump fire stocks twice,
NRA is calling on BATF to review bump stocks for compliance,
Congress to pass National reciprocity so individuals can protect themselves.
Trading a worthless, but fun, toy in exchange for reciprocity is something I can get behind.
I've read this entire thread.
Not. One. Inch.
I don't own a bump fire stock, I don't know anybody who owns one, I've never shot one, I've never seen one live and in person.
Don't care.
It's an accessory, not a gun.
Don't care.
Not. One. Inch.
It's the mad killer who was crazy, not the device.
Not. One. Inch.
I'm not supporting any ban on anything. I fully expect these to be banned, and soon. But I don't support that, and you can believe I'll keep track of my duly elected officials who do support this. This will be a check mark for them on the negative side.
Not. One. Inch.
I can see the strategy and wisdom of the NRA course of action. I do not find the bump fire stock to be a hill on which I am prepared to fight and die. If it were put in the same category as the suppressor I would not object. Actually, when the bump fires were first approved I was surprised. It did not seem like a wise or responsible decision to me. The full auto is banned, and the bump fire stock essentially makes the AR-15 full auto.
Personally, I would trade the bump fire stock, making it subject to greater scrutiny as with the suppressor, for nation-wide reciprocity. My wife want to visit Yosemite but I cannot go there with any weapons in the travel trailer. I am banned from the West coast, and I cannot get to New England because I have to pass through New York or Canada. Therefore, at this point, I agree with the NRA. Let's get the reciprocity so we can exercise our Second Amendment nation wide.
If it were put in the same category as the suppressor I would not object.