NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

[M-Quigley]

"We mourn this senseless slaughter and our hearts go out to the families of survivors. But does anyone believe that more laws are the answer? Does anyone believe those calling to ban bump fire stocks will settle for that one change?" Rieck said in an email to supporters.

I was speaking in the context of the legislative process. I am very skeptical that administrative action on bump stocks will preclude legislative action on anything. If I thought it would I would be all for it.

It certainly won't if the Democrats have their way. They want that to be only a part of the legislation along with universal background checks and other restrictions.

From the horse's mouth, so to speak.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson ... s-n2391259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Towards More Gun Control

[Ole_grizzly]

I am quite frustrated at this thread. Chuck, you seem to be proud that the newspaper made us look like fools. Others are so deeply entrenched in their ideology there is no chance for any compromise under any circumstance. I am encouraged by some of the other discourse.

I believe the NRA made a very smart play in not reacting as they were expected, it gives them a foundation to say in the future we were willing to agree to more regulations about something like bump stocks, and it changes the appearance just a little from the "cold dead hands" persona many people have of the NRA. I find it incredible that people would call the NRA, and accuse them of selling out over a non issue like bump stocks.

I am becoming more and more convinced that many people on this board do not take time to understand, relate to, or seek out people with differing opinions, or even those that haven't thought through the ramifications of either side of the gun control argument.

While there is good rationale, historical precedent, and nothing false in the email chuck sent out, (which I didn't get btw, not have I ever gotten any ofcc emails despite being a patron member for several years) anyone that reads that that hasn't thought things through will read that, think we're a bunch of extremist crazies, and further shift away from what we want. Letters like that, or discussions with neutral or anti people, in that type of haughty tone, harm more than help,the cause. Look at politics. Pandering to the base is useful, but doesn't grow the base.

Even amongst my most liberal friends, by speaking calmly, factually, and without interjecting commentary, I can explain the different branches of the NRA, bring to light the ILA and how it advocates for minorities, how many safety programs it runs, and how the part the media focuses on as if it's the whole NRA isn't true. I also can share the CNN article about where the NRA gets its funding (biggest donor is a Texas IT person who donates about $40,000) and how most donations are in the $25 range. I have even heard a few say they followed up and looked into it themselves, or repeat a few of those points.

Just who are we addressing? The tiny % of huge gun rights supporters in Ohio that haven't joined us? Or the rest of the population, that doesn't know a whole lot about firearms, might be inclined to learn more, but instead, is turned off by the flaming rhetoric that gun rights groups are increasingly becoming known for?

[Chuck]

So explain to me how the paper "made us look like fools"

And let me ask you, do you think these "bump stocks" ought to be outlawed?

I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction of banning something just because someone did something bad.
The antis know that bump fire is possible by a variety of means, belt loops and rubber bands are only a couple.
Their goal is to ban the entire AR platform, as they did once before.
They are on record as hoping that banning bump stocks is only the beginning of the slippery slope towards achieving that goal.
Remember Fast and Furious? They wanted a massacre then too, for the same purpose

Why would any freedom loving American support them in their quest?

I have plenty of Liberal friends who discuss gun rights with me all the time and the one thing all reasonable people can agree with is that laws are only followed by the law abiding, and do nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes. So they want registration and confiscation, thinking that the mad men won't be able to find the guns in the first place. They have no understanding of the concept of freedom and self reliance, thinking that government will provide for all their needs, from health care to personal safety to baby formula, they think they shouldn't be responsible for anything that happens to them, and don't want you being responsible for yourself neither.

I take exception to your claim that I, we, don't understand nor listen to the other side.
I don't believe that the NRA is making a "strategic move" by calling for more ATF intervention; I think they're screwing up.



In you want to receive our emails you can sign up here:
https://ohioccw.org/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It that doesn't work, send me a PM with your info and I'll get one of the smart kids to get you on the list
I'm not much of a computer guy myself,
I neither wrote nor sent the email, but I agree with it, with whole hearted enthusiasm

[willbird]

IMHO the rule of law and or regulation" should apply here.

The BATFE like lots of federal agencies has been empowered and tasked with writing regulations about compliance with Federal Law.

There is a regulation and Federal laws that apply to bumpfire stocks.

Typically mfg or even patent holders seeking to sell a patent will submit samples to BATFE got a ruling concerning their legality under federal law and or regulations. The BATFE then makes a NON BINDING ruling (they even say it is non binding). Based on that ruling a mfg will either redesign and submit another sample, or engage in mfg and sales of something that was approved by a non binding ruling.

In FAR more than one case the BATFE has later issued a ruling totally contrary to prior non binding rulings.....and the mfg had to seek find a way to comply with the new ruling.

The Akins accelerator is one such example, and worth reading up on....it was also a device that had about the same end function as a bumpfire stock...and perhaps the bumpfire stocks that do NOT use a small spring like the Akins did could be seen as an evolution of the final ruling they issued in that case. That case cost the Patent holder, the mfg, and investors quite a bit of money. They went forward with mfg based on a non binding BATFE ruling....and then BATFE reversed themselves making all of the products contraband.

Akins the patent holder sued BATFE and forced them to admit that the reversal was purely arbitrary in nature.

There was another case where BATFE issued a ruling that some kind of belt fed upper was ok, the mfg did more work on it and was ready to bring it to market than the BATFE reversed course and decided the upper itself was a Machine Gun.

Given the demonstrated arbitrary and capricious nature of past non binding BATFE rulings a reversal in this instance would hardly be surprising.

Bill

[bignflnut]

OFCC and other Ohio gun orgs have come out with a strong stance against any bump stock ban, yet, on this thread, there is a megaphone call for compromise.
If bump stocks were sacrificed, what would be gained? How does compromise work when you're standing on principle and you lack carrots/sticks?

We've previously sacrificed full auto weapons, based on simple function. The RKBA only applying to semi-auto firearms, apparently. Everybody knows about the fine print of the 2nd Amendment that mentions multiple trigger pulls.
And hey, if semi-autos fire very quickly (is that a .15second split or how fast is too fast?), we might capitulate on that point, right?

We're assuming a level playing field with people of good faith. Its "Ban em all vs Ban em none". If the "Ban em none" folks capitulate and accept any bans via compromise, then their future destruction is purchased.

One can't impart moral agency, much less malice to an inanimate object. (Hello bizzaro world non-level playing field) I can appreciate how the rantings of the ignorant leftists seem overwhelming. Eventually we have the law on our side, don't we? Why do we assume a level playing field, like we can get 1 for 1 trades? How does that look like progress? We got carry, with how many conditions / poison pills? We take multiple steps backward for every step forward. Yeah, we get to fund-raise for decades like the pro-life groups (44 years and counting...), having multiple generations continue to trade poison pills for "new ground" or whatever positive change you want to call it. Lay out the plan. Let me know what you're willing to sacrifice and what you think you're going to gain. How red do you need the Statehouse to be? 66 to 33 in the House, 24 to 9 in the Senate. When's going to be a better time? What's the 50 year plan that is being advocated? The Swamp says it's impossible, that we can't get there, while we watch other states get there. Just sit down and accept what we're willing to give you. Think more about how many ways the law will hang you than defending yourself and your loved ones.

In a day and age where all sorts of minority groups are legally picking up arms for the first time in generations, gun groups stand ready to allow bans. Where's the line? How will it be defended if we already assume that the PR battle is lost and that the struggle must continue for decades?

I fail to comprehend the simultaneous strong stance against a bump stock ban and the wailing and moaning over the NRAs virtue signaling that it's ready to sacrifice bump stocks on the Altar of Compromise.

[willbird]

OFCC and other Ohio gun orgs have come out with a strong stance against any bump stock ban, yet, on this thread, there is a megaphone call for compromise.
If bump stocks were sacrificed, what would be gained? How does compromise work when you're standing on principle and you lack carrots/sticks?

We've previously sacrificed full auto weapons, based on simple function. The RKBA only applying to semi-auto firearms, apparently. Everybody knows about the fine print of the 2nd Amendment that mentions multiple trigger pulls.
And hey, if semi-autos fire very quickly (is that a .15second split or how fast is too fast?), we might capitulate on that point, right?

We're assuming a level playing field with people of good faith. Its "Ban em all vs Ban em none". If the "Ban em none" folks capitulate and accept any bans via compromise, then their future destruction is purchased.

One can't impart moral agency, much less malice to an inanimate object. (Hello bizzaro world non-level playing field) I can appreciate how the rantings of the ignorant leftists seem overwhelming. Eventually we have the law on our side, don't we? Why do we assume a level playing field, like we can get 1 for 1 trades? How does that look like progress? We got carry, with how many conditions / poison pills? We take multiple steps backward for every step forward. Yeah, we get to fund-raise for decades like the pro-life groups (44 years and counting...), having multiple generations continue to trade poison pills for "new ground" or whatever positive change you want to call it. Lay out the plan. Let me know what you're willing to sacrifice and what you think you're going to gain. How red do you need the Statehouse to be? 66 to 33 in the House, 24 to 9 in the Senate. When's going to be a better time? What's the 50 year plan that is being advocated? The Swamp says it's impossible, that we can't get there, while we watch other states get there. Just sit down and accept what we're willing to give you. Think more about how many ways the law will hang you than defending yourself and your loved ones.

In a day and age where all sorts of minority groups are legally picking up arms for the first time in generations, gun groups stand ready to allow bans. Where's the line? How will it be defended if we already assume that the PR battle is lost and that the struggle must continue for decades?

I fail to comprehend the simultaneous strong stance against a bump stock ban and the wailing and moaning over the NRAs virtue signaling that it's ready to sacrifice bump stocks on the Altar of Compromise.

To me it still hinges on the rulings of a regulatory agency which is empowered to regulate.

The BATFE had made some rulings on ammunition that they later had to walk back.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/atf-sued-ove ... r-15-ammo/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I apologize for the source, but yet another example of a case where IMHO for political reasons pressure (again IMHO) was applied to a govt agency to rule a certain way.

The bump stock ruling was also issued in the same 8 year time frame where the Executive branch was trying IMHO to create as much bloodshed (fast and furious?) with so called "Assault Weapons" as it could. Perhaps mass murder was not the intended result....they might have just sought to have more folks who did not understand guns at all buy in to the idea that AR's and others are full automatic.



Bill

[schmieg]

The thing is that a strict reading of the statute would result in a determination that bump stocks are not violative so ATF would have to find something else to hang its hat on unless they just decide to arbitrarily ban them, which is not unusual for them. An administrative ban would be better for us as it could later be overturned in court or by a future administration. For that reason, the NRA's gambit will probably fail and we will almost assuredly end up with a legislative knee-jerk to this incident.

[Ghost]

I am quite frustrated at this thread. Chuck, you seem to be proud that the newspaper made us look like fools. Others are so deeply entrenched in their ideology there is no chance for any compromise under any circumstance. I am encouraged by some of the other discourse.

I believe the NRA made a very smart play in not reacting as they were expected, it gives them a foundation to say in the future we were willing to agree to more regulations about something like bump stocks, and it changes the appearance just a little from the "cold dead hands" persona many people have of the NRA. I find it incredible that people would call the NRA, and accuse them of selling out over a non issue like bump stocks.

I am becoming more and more convinced that many people on this board do not take time to understand, relate to, or seek out people with differing opinions, or even those that haven't thought through the ramifications of either side of the gun control argument.

While there is good rationale, historical precedent, and nothing false in the email chuck sent out, (which I didn't get btw, not have I ever gotten any ofcc emails despite being a patron member for several years) anyone that reads that that hasn't thought things through will read that, think we're a bunch of extremist crazies, and further shift away from what we want. Letters like that, or discussions with neutral or anti people, in that type of haughty tone, harm more than help,the cause. Look at politics. Pandering to the base is useful, but doesn't grow the base.

Even amongst my most liberal friends, by speaking calmly, factually, and without interjecting commentary, I can explain the different branches of the NRA, bring to light the ILA and how it advocates for minorities, how many safety programs it runs, and how the part the media focuses on as if it's the whole NRA isn't true. I also can share the CNN article about where the NRA gets its funding (biggest donor is a Texas IT person who donates about $40,000) and how most donations are in the $25 range. I have even heard a few say they followed up and looked into it themselves, or repeat a few of those points.

Just who are we addressing? The tiny % of huge gun rights supporters in Ohio that haven't joined us? Or the rest of the population, that doesn't know a whole lot about firearms, might be inclined to learn more, but instead, is turned off by the flaming rhetoric that gun rights groups are increasingly becoming known for?

I’m frustrated with foolish gun owners, who believe we can pacify leftists by giving into addition gun legislation. I wonder if during WW2 you’d be arguing, that the U.S. should have given Hawaii to Japan in order to prevent a war?

Do you think this isn’t a battle in the war against our gun rights? It most definitely is.

As others have said, comprise is ok if your getting something in return. In this case we are not.

In this case we should be extreme and uncompromising on this issue. I am and so are others on this forum. At least we hold firm to our principles. I believe our country’s founders would agree.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Chuck]

I just saw a video clip from our local NBC station shooting some guy shooting a watermelon while the narrator says "just watch this watermelon explode when it gets shot with an AR15"

Are we REALLY supposed to listen to, understand, and negotiate a "compromise" with this type of idiot?
How?

Do I say "OK, you can ban the bump stock as long as you stop calling the 12 gauge pump an AR15" ??

One of you "common sensers" give me some advice here.

[Ole_grizzly]

So explain to me how the paper "made us look like fools"

- "I think they like us" - From your earlier post

And let me ask you, do you think these "bump stocks" ought to be outlawed?

- Yes, they are ridiculous, serve no legitimate purpose, and are an absurd accessory to take a stand behind.

I am disappointed in the knee jerk reaction of banning something just because someone did something bad.
The antis know that bump fire is possible by a variety of means, belt loops and rubber bands are only a couple.
Their goal is to ban the entire AR platform, as they did once before.
They are on record as hoping that banning bump stocks is only the beginning of the slippery slope towards achieving that goal.
Remember Fast and Furious? They wanted a massacre then too, for the same purpose

Why would any freedom loving American support them in their quest?

I have plenty of Liberal friends who discuss gun rights with me all the time and the one thing all reasonable people can agree with is that laws are only followed by the law abiding, and do nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes. So they want registration and confiscation, thinking that the mad men won't be able to find the guns in the first place. They have no understanding of the concept of freedom and self reliance, thinking that government will provide for all their needs, from health care to personal safety to baby formula, they think they shouldn't be responsible for anything that happens to them, and don't want you being responsible for yourself neither.

I take exception to your claim that I, we, don't understand nor listen to the other side.

- If you did, then you wouldn't write letters that alienate anybody that doesn't already totally agree with you.


I don't believe that the NRA is making a "strategic move" by calling for more ATF intervention; I think they're screwing up.

- We can agree to disagree. Fighting for an innocuous accessory that serves absolutely no purpose no matter your opinion of the second amendment in the name of fighting incrementalization without realizing our current political climate is beyond my understanding. We have the entire media against our opinions and rights. The NRA is simply giving an out to republican legislators in contested districts that can't remain on the far right of gun control when mass shootings continue to occur, and low information voters who can't and won't think for themselves decide their contest. Being against every possible gun control regulation is self defeating, and this seems like an easy compromise. This does not preclude a future fight against legitimate attempts, it gives us a leg to stand on that we're not totally against everything just because. Your position (and apparently OFCC's) does not allow for that discussion, and it's severely disappointing.



In you want to receive our emails you can sign up here:
https://ohioccw.org/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=109" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It that doesn't work, send me a PM with your info and I'll get one of the smart kids to get you on the list
I'm not much of a computer guy myself,
I neither wrote nor sent the email, but I agree with it, with whole hearted enthusiasm

I will say personally that I love your engagement with the membership, respect the hell out of your effort at the statehouse, your attitude and ability to listen to those that have had problems, and I respect you greatly. I hope this sounds sincere, because it is, I just disagree on this issue, I'm giving my opinion, you can choose whether or not to be affected by it, and I will remain a patron member as long as this organization exists.

[Ole_grizzly]

I just saw a video clip from our local NBC station shooting some guy shooting a watermelon while the narrator says "just watch this watermelon explode when it gets shot with an AR15"

Are we REALLY supposed to listen to, understand, and negotiate a "compromise" with this type of idiot?
How?

Do I say "OK, you can ban the bump stock as long as you stop calling the 12 gauge pump an AR15" ??

One of you "common sensers" give me some advice here.

How about take a page out of buckeye firearms book with educators, and pay for training at TDI for media members. I will pledge the first $5,000 right now if you decide to offer a program to this effect.

[Ole_grizzly]

I’m frustrated with foolish gun owners, who believe we can pacify leftists by giving into addition gun legislation. I wonder if during WW2 you’d be arguing, that the U.S. should have given Hawaii to Japan in order to prevent a war?

- Here is an exact representation of the problem I am bringing up. I am not in favor of banning bump stocks to pacify leftists. I am in favor of giving people on the fence of gun rights reason to think that they could associate with us because we aren't so hard and fast about every single proposal. Your comparison to WW2 is absurd.

Do you think this isn’t a battle in the war against our gun rights? It most definitely is.

As others have said, comprise is ok if your getting something in return. In this case we are not.
- Honestly, what is the difference to anyone here if bump stocks exist or not? If all you ever think is that if you give an inch you'll have to give a mile, you'll never get anything you want from the other side.

In this case we should be extreme and uncompromising on this issue. I am and so are others on this forum. At least we hold firm to our principles. I believe our country’s founders would agree.

- yes, because the constitution was universally loved at the time, never debated, and wasn't one huge compromise itself that didn't appease anybody.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know" Kansas, Carry on wayward son lyric.

[Ghost]

Yeah, because quoting a 70’s rock band proves wisdom and lends credibility to one’s argument. Oh, brother.

[Javelin Man]

Yeah, because quoting a 70’s rock band proves wisdom and lends credibility to one’s argument. Oh, brother.

Let's continue to be civil in this discussion...

[Mustang380gal]

I just saw a video clip from our local NBC station shooting some guy shooting a watermelon while the narrator says "just watch this watermelon explode when it gets shot with an AR15"

Are we REALLY supposed to listen to, understand, and negotiate a "compromise" with this type of idiot?
How?

Do I say "OK, you can ban the bump stock as long as you stop calling the 12 gauge pump an AR15" ??

One of you "common sensers" give me some advice here.

How about take a page out of buckeye firearms book with educators, and pay for training at TDI for media members. I will pledge the first $5,000 right now if you decide to offer a program to this effect.

Why do we need to mimic BFA’s playbook? We have our own playbook. We are trying to further gun rights by legislation and through the judiciary. That is not a cheap effort. Lawyers expect to get paid well. I guarantee that $5000 would be a huge help in our efforts against Cleveland et al.