NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[JAL]

or functions to accelerate the rate of fire
I would say... yes, someone could construe it that way

It's conceivable someone somewhere with a disarm America agenda would, but it's not credible that it would be enforced. I'll preempt the question asking if it will require Jerry Miculek's fingers being amputated, or at the least declared NFA Class 3 with a choice of serial numbering and paying a tax stamp or amputating them and sending them to the BATF. Clearly absurd. These are imagination run wild "slippery slope fallacy" arguments.

John

 

[ScouT6a]

 

[JAL]

"it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,8 a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine-gun. ‘‘This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

This will never pass the litmus test. Any good attorney would have a hay day with this.

On that I agree. It would have to be much more narrowly written. A federal court would eventually take issue with it being too broad when a zealot federal prosecutor attempted to run wild with it.

ETA:
Congress doesn't like to see its laws overturned soon after they've been enacted, even though it has occasionally played a game of chicken with the federal courts. An example of the former is the Stolen Valor Act and Congress quickly amended it. There is typically some diligent effort to ensure it won't quickly run aground in the courts. (BTW, there are other parts of Title 18, USC that make what was intended by the Stolen Valor Act illegal and punishable.)

John

 

[Bhart89]

You might want to quote the actual BATF letter correctly (verbatim) before going on your counter-rant claiming I made my assertions from negligent ignorance. I did read the 2010 approval letter sent to Slide Fire, to verify my suspicions before claiming deliberate deception. This is the 2010 BATF letter:
https://www.scribd.com/document/360...mination-Letter-2010-NOT-an-Automatic-Weapon#

BATF did not come to that conclusion in a vacuum. Its purpose to facilitate disabled persons' rifle use was precisely how it was submitted to them by Slide Fire. Did they tell BATF: "This purpose of this device is enabling the use of a semi-auto AR-15, AR-10, AK-47 and similar rifles with a rate of fire equal to a fully automatic." That's my point. They didn't and you did not quote the entire sentence from their approval verbatim (WHY NOT??). You chose to quote an edited version as if it was verbatim and not inform anyone that it was edited, changing its substantive meaning and what one would naturally conclude from it. This is the entire sentence and states clearly that it's precisely what Slide Fire told the BATF regarding its purpose (full sentence quoted from the BATF 2010 approval letter sent to Slide Fire):

Slide Fire and Bump Fire Systems knew at the outset these devices would be used to circumvent automatic weapons prohibition and/or Class 3 regulation. Not disclosing that intended purpose to the BATF was very deliberately deceptive. One may fault the BATF for not figuring that out on their own. However, a failure of BATF imagination, sufficient investigation or experimentation on their part doesn't excuse the manufacturer from being forthright. In my world, it's considered dishonesty to tell them it's a tool for the disabled, when in reality its a tool to make a de facto machine gun.

John

Are you equating a relatively high rate of fire with what defines a machine gun or a single actuation of the trigger to fire multiple rounds? I don't believe the NFA definition of machine gun ever addressed rate of fire, only what result a single manipulation of the trigger produces.

 

[Floivanus]

Are you equating a relatively high rate of fire with what defines a machine gun or a single actuation of the trigger to fire multiple rounds? I don't believe the NFA definition of machine gun ever addressed rate of fire, only what result a single manipulation of the trigger produces.

Dems and rinos are trying to conflate rate of fire with the long standing definition of machine gun.

and yes accelerated rate of fire could be construed several ways. And don't worry they've already confirmed that they are introduconammo legislation, magazine restrictions, and a new assault weapons ban. With a rumor of scope/ optics legislation.

 

[Dean C.]

Dems and rinos are trying to conflate rate of fire with the long standing definition of machine gun.

and yes accelerated rate of fire could be construed several ways. And don't worry they've already confirmed that they are introduconammo legislation, magazine restrictions, and a new assault weapons ban. With a rumor of scope/ optics legislation.

And with that i order more ammo and magazines

 

[churchmouse]

And with that i order more ammo and magazines

Never enough ammo. Fair on Mags but hey, never enough there either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let's start with the last 12 months, right here in the US. We can work our way backwards and expand from there.

The Charlottesville car ramming, the stabbing of Tim Caughman, and the Portland Train Attack. You owe me 300 counterexamples to make you 99% claim true. Since I don't want you to work endlessly trying to find something there is a high likelihood of you NOT finding, I will accept 25 individual instances since Jan 1st.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Liberty1916]

The Charlottesville car ramming, the stabbing of Tim Caughman, and the Portland Train Attack. You owe me 300 counterexamples to make you 99% claim true. Since I don't want you to work endlessly trying to find something there is a high likelihood of you NOT finding, I will accept 25 individual instances since Jan 1st.

Or, I could debunk your assertion that these are examples of "right wing" political violence.

Charlottesville - Motive isn't known. For all you know, the guy was driving home and went down the wrong street, his car was attacked, and he panicked. He may have been right wing, and/or he may have been a white supremacist, but no one knows yet if he purposely ran people down because of that. And, I'm sure you know but plenty of white supremacists are leftists.

Caughman - Stabbed because he was black, no other motive. That's a hate crime, not political violence.

Portland - Again, another hate crime, anti-Muslim. If you want to classify any individual hate crimes against minorities as political, that's fine. But to be consistent, we would need to classify any minority crime against whites the same way. But I personally wouldn't, and I hope you're not trying to say that all minorities are left wing and all whites are right wing.

I think you're obfuscating the issue though. You're lumping racial motives in with political motives, when you don't even know the political affiliation or political motives of any of the three people you mentioned.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Has the hughes amendment ever gone before SCOTUS? Only thin I'm aware of is miller v US which decided that SBS could be regulated by the NFA because they had no militia use. That finding should make the argument for us that SBRs and MGs shouldn't be NFA weapons, correct me if I'm wrong.

It is important to remember that Miller was the ultimate in kangaroo court as his case was appealed to the SC by the feds IN HIS ABSENCE AFTER HE WAS DEAD and the trial was allowed to proceed without him being available to defend himself.

 

[Aim small miss small]

I'm pulling my support for the NRA after this not that I like or own a bump stock but I'm tired of the NRA rolling over on stuff like this SMH !

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't live in the bathroom, regardless of what my wife tells you.

LOL...My "home office" is what mine calls the little half bathroom....

My wife has made this accusation of me. The pizza order is a lie though.

https://goo.gl/images/sKH2LZ

 

[actaeon277]

It's conceivable someone somewhere with a disarm America agenda would, but it's not credible that it would be enforced. I'll preempt the question asking if it will require Jerry Miculek's fingers being amputated, or at the least declared NFA Class 3 with a choice of serial numbering and paying a tax stamp or amputating them and sending them to the BATF. Clearly absurd. These are imagination run wild "slippery slope fallacy" arguments.

John

Pelosi has already stated she's okay with the "slippery slope".

 

[churchmouse]

Pelosi has already stated she's okay with the "slippery slope".

She is referring to her face.

 

[actaeon277]

She is referring to her face.

I'm gonna argue facts, not looks or insults.

 

[Alpo]

I'm gonna argue facts, not looks or insults.

I equate Pelosi's remark to gender identity. There exists on this planet a group...a fairly large group actually with approximately 3.5 billion members and 2 'X' chromosomes in slot 23...that MUST have the last word.


my wife just texted: "that's not true!"

 

[churchmouse]

I'm gonna argue facts, not looks or insults.

Sorry act but her mere presence I find insulting so hence the snarky remarks.
She lies/twists/lies some more. Those are the facts as I see them.

 

[actaeon277]

Sorry act but her mere presence I find insulting so hence the snarky remarks.
She lies/twists/lies some more. Those are the facts as I see them.

I understand. But when someone uses an insult, to me that means they have lost the argument.

 

[actaeon277]

And Jim Lucas did a FANTASTIC job of explaining it.

If you are legal, the State MUST issue you a LTCH.
So, you are requiring a the innocent to PROVE themselves.