NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by Chuck »

bignflnut wrote:
Chuck wrote:

***When fair weather gun groups and summer politicians fade away OFCC stands our ground***
I certainly hope OFCC gets religion on this (and so many other issues), publicly repents of their eager acceptance of poison pills in the past, and decides to run like their hair is on fire away from pragmatic politics. Nobody's going to out-swamp other ohio orgs who are in bed with the poision pill prescribing legislators.
I take exception to your term "eager acceptance" ; let me tell you why
In the legislative session before we got concealed carry in Ohio, there was a bill that had only one poison pill in it.
OFCC stood firm in rejecting the bill, sure we could do better the next session.
Well, when the next session rolled around, the bill had several of these poison pills that we just couldn't get eliminated.
What should we do? Continue standing firm while folks STILL can't carry legally, or take what we could and get busy on removing the crap?
We obviously choose to take the crap and get busy removing it.

But think how different things would have been if we had only accepted the first bill.

There is nothing "eager" about accepting poison pills. It was done reluctantly and with anger.
We make our decisions based on the information we have at the time, and try to base our future decisions on our past experiences.

What would you have done?
Took the first bill or stood on principle?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by bignflnut »

Chuck wrote:In the legislative session before we got concealed carry in Ohio, there was a bill that had only one poison pill in it.
OFCC stood firm in rejecting the bill, sure we could do better the next session.

What would you have done?
Took the first bill or stood on principle?
Chuck, I have no quarrel with you. I wasn't directing any of my comments at you personally.
I'll engage the conversation, but know that I'm not blaming you for the past poison pills.

A) OFCC stood firm in rejecting the first bill, calculating that a better bill was imminent.
I would applaud that effort. I'm in that camp. Stand for the best, accept no substitutes.

So the next bill comes down the pipe and it's worse.
Chuck wrote:What should we do? Continue standing firm while folks STILL can't carry legally, or take what we could and get busy on removing the crap?
We obviously choose to take the crap and get busy removing it.
B) OFCC does not stand firm after having stood firm for less. The miscalculation that there was a better bill forthcoming caused fear and trepidation which gave rise to another miscalculation.
--At this point, hasn't OFCC demonstrated that they will accept less acceptable bills? Why is anyone motivated to improve legislation, when it will get the endorsement of the org in it's shabby condition? The right play in the second session was to oust the people who had injected the poison pills, not reward them with a legislative win. They can then continue to undermine RKBA in Ohio with further legislation that can't be opposed on any principled basis.

Hence my call for public repentance. OFCC has to serve notice to the swamp and the donor base that they recognize and have learned from the past errors. #NeverForget
If the org continues to proudly sell the notion that they did the right thing in both instances (I agree with A, not B) any proclamation that they're a "no compromise" / "give no quarter" type of org is undermined. That is the type of org that citizens trust and financially support. Not one which accepts the poison pills from the swamp, believing that they can spend the next decade plus undoing the poison pills (the believed lie that gives comfort when legislation is miserable). I'll retract "eager" if it helps. We are where we are today due to the acceptance of the poison pills.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
williaty
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by williaty »

Ghost wrote: You are however, (by your own admission and posts) a liberal that is ok with additional gun control.

I’m not mad at you but disagree with you on a fundamental level. The fact that your a liberal, also doesn’t exactly disprove what I said about liberals wanting gun control. It actually kinda proves my point. 8)
Actually, I'm not ok with additional gun control. I'm ok with long-term strategic progress towards better gun rights. This fight isn't going to be won today and it isn't going to be won tomorrow. It may not even be won within my lifetime. The critical thing is that we generally move forwards and don't lose any of the most important ground we've already gained. It's much better to accept a small hit, which we can work to repeal easily in the near future, than to be stubborn and end up with a new assault weapons ban or any of the many terrible laws from California.

In other words, I am willing to temporarily trade (with the intent to claw it back in the near future) a non-essential accessory to ensure that we don't lose an entire class of guns, the ability to buy ammo without a background check, or concealed carry rights.

I want to win the fight, not any single battle.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by Chuck »

bignflnut wrote:
Chuck wrote:In the legislative session before we got concealed carry in Ohio, there was a bill that had only one poison pill in it.
OFCC stood firm in rejecting the bill, sure we could do better the next session.

What would you have done?
Took the first bill or stood on principle?
Chuck, I have no quarrel with you. I wasn't directing any of my comments at you personally.
I'll engage the conversation, but know that I'm not blaming you for the past poison pills.
Very little anyone says is taken "personally", so please quit worrying about that

bignflnut wrote:A) OFCC stood firm in rejecting the first bill, calculating that a better bill was imminent.
I would applaud that effort. I'm in that camp. Stand for the best, accept no substitutes.
EXACTLY what we thought,,, at that time
bignflnut wrote:So the next bill comes down the pipe and it's worse.
Chuck wrote:What should we do? Continue standing firm while folks STILL can't carry legally, or take what we could and get busy on removing the crap?
We obviously choose to take the crap and get busy removing it.
B) OFCC does not stand firm after having stood firm for less. The miscalculation that there was a better bill forthcoming caused fear and trepidation which gave rise to another miscalculation.
--At this point, hasn't OFCC demonstrated that they will accept less acceptable bills? Why is anyone motivated to improve legislation, when it will get the endorsement of the org in it's shabby condition? The right play in the second session was to oust the people who had injected the poison pills, not reward them with a legislative win.
And how long until that happens, and what do we do about defending ourselves in the meantime?
Rolling a republican legislature isn't going to happen, unless you replace all of them with democrats.
Once the democrats are in, you have to get THEM, then start all over.
Getting the whole of the electorate to change parties that many times isn't going to happen in a general election or two, but rather over DECADES.
I would rather carry with asinine conditions attached than not carry at all; how about you?
Are you carrying concealed under all the conditions you condemn us for accepting or are you the purest, who only carries openly as is your right in this great state?

bignflnut wrote:They can then continue to undermine RKBA in Ohio with further legislation that can't be opposed on any principled basis.
Such as?
I know of no new restrictions on gun rights in the last fifteen years, but I am getting old and forgetful

bignflnut wrote:Hence my call for public repentance. OFCC has to serve notice to the swamp and the donor base that they recognize and have learned from the past errors. #NeverForget
If the org continues to proudly sell the notion that they did the right thing in both instances (I agree with A, not B) any proclamation that they're a "no compromise" / "give no quarter" type of org is undermined. That is the type of org that citizens trust and financially support. Not one which accepts the poison pills from the swamp, believing that they can spend the next decade plus undoing the poison pills (the believed lie that gives comfort when legislation is miserable). I'll retract "eager" if it helps. We are where we are today due to the acceptance of the poison pills.
We do what we think is best for our membership and the gun community at large. Sub HB 142 is no improvement at all since cities will be able to raise the MM to an M1 anyway. They actually said to me "At least now there won't be licenses being suspended". This trickle is well offset by the undermining of ORC 9.68 by allowing localities to make their own penalties. Someday, a city will point to this as a reason for allowing "home rule" with gun rights.
It sets a VERY bad precedent.

IMO, we could still be working on the perfect bill. It was far better to take what we could and work on more in the future, than to only accept a perfect bill, no exceptions.
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
williaty
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by williaty »

bignflnut wrote:any proclamation that they're a "no compromise" / "give no quarter" type of org is undermined. That is the type of org that citizens trust and financially support. Not one which accepts the poison pills from the swamp, believing that they can spend the next decade plus undoing the poison pills (the believed lie that gives comfort when legislation is miserable). I'll retract "eager" if it helps. We are where we are today due to the acceptance of the poison pills.
I take the opposite view to you: I'm very uncomfortable supporting a "no compromise under any conditions" group because they tend to always lose, or at least not achieve anything. A group that does what OFCC did, that is, make the best of what they had at the time, is much more likely to win in the long run. Not to mention that we've had years of legal concealed carry now with more stupidity being removed yearly. That's the sort of long-term game I'm willing to put my money and my time behind.

I've been heavily involved in advocacy for other political movements as well. The ones that succeeded all shared a common philosophy of "What can we get today that makes things better than yesterday? Now what can we get tomorrow that's better still?". The ones that failed all demanded everything they wanted, without compromise, on day 1.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by JustaShooter »

williaty wrote:A group that does what OFCC did, that is, make the best of what they had at the time, is much more likely to win in the long run. Not to mention that we've had years of legal concealed carry now with more stupidity being removed yearly. That's the sort of long-term game I'm willing to put my money and my time behind.
We would love to have you as a paying member, williaty. And, we could always use volunteers to help with our efforts if that's something you can do.

And in case anyone doesn't know, we've just started a special deal on our annual memberships - from now till the first of the year you can save $5 off when you join or renew. It applies to either our Regular or Patron annual memberships, making them $20 and $55 respectively. You can join here: https://ohioccw.org/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by Chuck »

We made the Columbus Dispatch:
Friday
Oct 6, 2017 at 8:11 AM Oct 6, 2017 at 7:39 PM

Darrel Rowland The Columbus Dispatch @darreldrowland

Here's how close Ohioans are to coming together about guns five days after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history:

•Rep. Tim Ryan is giving the campaign money — $20,000 in all — he's received from the National Rifle Association to gun control groups.

•A pair of Ohio gun rights groups warned against even considering a ban on the "bump stocks" apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter to effectively convert his gun into an automatic weapon, even though President Donald Trump and the NRA expressed openness to the idea.

•While Gov. John Kasich told a national TV audience he advocates the bump-stock ban, a spokesman said Friday he had no word on whether Kasich would urge his fellow Republicans in the state legislature to pass such a law, or whether he would campaign publicly in Ohio for the change. State Sen. Cecil Thomas, a Cincinnati Democrat who was a police officer for several years, already has announced his intent to introduce legislation mandating an Ohio ban.

While Kasich called for an effort "to bring together people from both sides of the debate," the two sides on the controversial issue appeared to be digging in even deeper.

Ryan, who began his congressional career with an "A" rating from the NRA, decided to give an amount equal to the group's campaign contributions to Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions and Everytown for Gun Safety.

The Niles Democrat's move followed an announcement from Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minnesota, that he would donate $18,950 of his past NRA contributions to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund.

Ryan, a recreational hunter who, according to a spokesman, "has no interest in taking guns from law-abiding citizens," has signed onto a House bill that would ban such devices. He broke with the NRA after the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the spokesman said.

Both the Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry warned that a ban on any gun accessory would lead to a slippery slope toward a total ban on guns

"Ban the bump fire stocks! Ban high capacity magazines! Ban evil black assault weapons! And while we're at it, why not repeal the Second Amendment! Here we go again!!!" was the opener of a missive Friday from Dean Rieck, executive director of Buckeye Firearms.

"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.

"Of course there's a slippery slope. And of course they want to take our guns away. That's always been their goal. It remains their goal. And it always will be their goal," he said.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry lamented that "nominal" gun rights supporters who think they can use the NRA's stance as cover for anti-gun legislation.

"It is a sad and tired tactic that when ambitious politicians see a tragedy they dip their quills into the blood of innocent victims and start writing laws that won't protect anybody but will absolutely infringe on our precious liberties," the group said in an unsigned email.

"We say no knee-jerk bans on any gun accessory just because the media has demonized it," the concealed carry organization said.

"We're not going there. We're not even going to swerve near the exit lane that leads to gun ban neighborhood. We're staying in the express lane towards liberty land while driving the pro-gun agenda muscle car in high gear. That will anger the elitists in the anti-gun movement but we're just fine with that."

Maureen Washock, volunteer chapter leader with the Ohio chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America:

"The fact that these groups oppose restrictions on these dangerous accessories shows just how out of touch they are with the values of the vast majority of Ohioans, including most gun owners. Responsible gun owners know they can support common-sense public safety laws while also supporting the Second Amendment."

Meanwhile, Massachusetts could be moving quickly to outlaw the bump stock devices, the Associated Press reported.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers have both filed bills to ban the devices. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said he supports a ban.

State Rep. David Linsky, a Natick Democrat, has filed legislation that would outlaw any devices that increase the rate of discharge of a weapon and ban the sale of large capacity-feeding devices.

Republican Senate Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester has sponsored a bill that would prohibit devices that effectively turn rifles and shotguns into weapons with firing capabilities similar to machine guns.

Jessica Wehrman of the Dispatch Washington bureau contributed to this story
I think they like us
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by schmieg »

williaty wrote:
bignflnut wrote:any proclamation that they're a "no compromise" / "give no quarter" type of org is undermined. That is the type of org that citizens trust and financially support. Not one which accepts the poison pills from the swamp, believing that they can spend the next decade plus undoing the poison pills (the believed lie that gives comfort when legislation is miserable). I'll retract "eager" if it helps. We are where we are today due to the acceptance of the poison pills.
I take the opposite view to you: I'm very uncomfortable supporting a "no compromise under any conditions" group because they tend to always lose, or at least not achieve anything. A group that does what OFCC did, that is, make the best of what they had at the time, is much more likely to win in the long run. Not to mention that we've had years of legal concealed carry now with more stupidity being removed yearly. That's the sort of long-term game I'm willing to put my money and my time behind.

I've been heavily involved in advocacy for other political movements as well. The ones that succeeded all shared a common philosophy of "What can we get today that makes things better than yesterday? Now what can we get tomorrow that's better still?". The ones that failed all demanded everything they wanted, without compromise, on day 1.
One thing I learned in 30 years of law practice was that you can't win them all, but you can sometimes accomplish some of your goals through compromise. And compromise in legislation is not a final result as it generally is in litigation where the final entry becomes the law of that case.

Another thing I learned is that with compromise, usually both parties are unhappy. This is generally good, for if one party isn't unhappy, that means there wasn't a compromise and the happy party accomplished what he sought. Of course, with legislation, it means that the issues compromised will be revisited in the future.

I tend to agree with the NRA and you in this matter. It would be better to have this handled administratively than legislatively and it will be handled. I don't think any of us have any real doubts about that. Further, it's a minor thing as fully automatic weapons would still be available to those with the money and who qualify whereas a legislative determination might go well beyond just bump stocks. Further, bump stocks in my opinion are dangerous. You lose accuracy and control to a degree with full automatic (unless you are using a mounted M2 or M60), but you lose it almost completely with bump stocks.

I also second the invitation to become a member and consider becoming active in the organization.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by WestonDon »

I understand the necessity for compromise. I'm OK with compromise that means we gain something in exchange for losing something. Personally, there are a lot of things more important to me than bump stocks, national reciprocity for instance. Compromise that means we only can limit our losses is unacceptable IMO.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
willbird
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 11446
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by willbird »

I'm pondering on the idea that the Obama admin ordered the BATFE to act as they were told to act.

Perhaps the BATFE bumpfire stock ruling was just another fast and furious type operation to try to create a situation (mass murder) that made semi auto firearms in general "look bad".

Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans :-).
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by schmieg »

WestonDon wrote:I understand the necessity for compromise. I'm OK with compromise that means we gain something in exchange for losing something. Personally, there are a lot of things more important to me than bump stocks, national reciprocity for instance. Compromise that means we only can limit our losses is unacceptable IMO.
So, no administrative action on bump stocks is acceptable even though it means legislative outlaw of all weapons that have or simulate automatic fire. Allowing the first so that the second occurs is good because we didn't get something back?
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by WestonDon »

schmieg wrote:
WestonDon wrote:I understand the necessity for compromise. I'm OK with compromise that means we gain something in exchange for losing something. Personally, there are a lot of things more important to me than bump stocks, national reciprocity for instance. Compromise that means we only can limit our losses is unacceptable IMO.
So, no administrative action on bump stocks is acceptable even though it means legislative outlaw of all weapons that have or simulate automatic fire. Allowing the first so that the second occurs is good because we didn't get something back?
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.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by schmieg »

WestonDon wrote: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.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by WestonDon »

willbird wrote:I'm pondering on the idea that the Obama admin ordered the BATFE to act as they were told to act.

Perhaps the BATFE bumpfire stock ruling was just another fast and furious type operation to try to create a situation (mass murder) that made semi auto firearms in general "look bad".

Bill
I think they were sleazy enough to do that but I don't think they were that smart.

ATF has a very precise definition for a machine gun and I believe their ruling on bump stocks fits that definition.

From the ATF website:

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

I think it's the single function of the trigger part that is key.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Post by schmieg »

WestonDon wrote:
willbird wrote:I'm pondering on the idea that the Obama admin ordered the BATFE to act as they were told to act.

Perhaps the BATFE bumpfire stock ruling was just another fast and furious type operation to try to create a situation (mass murder) that made semi auto firearms in general "look bad".

Bill
I think they were sleazy enough to do that but I don't think they were that smart.

ATF has a very precise definition for a machine gun and I believe their ruling on bump stocks fits that definition.

From the ATF website:

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

I think it's the single function of the trigger part that is key.
You hit the nail on the head, Don.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
Post Reply