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: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby WestonDon » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:24 pm

The more I think about this issue the more I agree with Chuck. Here's why.

I don't believe there is any PERMANENT good will to be gained from or enlightenment to be imparted to those undecided about guns (or us) by capitulating on bump stocks. I just don't buy that argument.

The hard core antis will still want to confiscate all our guns no matter what stance we take on bump stocks.

The gun ban people will not think hey, maybe these guys aren't so bad after all, we can have a reasonable discussion with them. No. I expect they would smell blood in the water and attack with renewed vigor.

Now let's think about what a bump stock ban would look like. If you're going to ban something first you have to define it. Just saying "bump fire stock like the guy in Vegas used" won't cut it. It has to be defined narrowly and precisely. Define it too narrowly and it becomes easy to circumvent the definition and achieve the same result. Define it too broadly and it affects other unintended things.

I am interested in hearing from those who would approve a bump stock ban just how acceptable legislation would be crafted to ban ONLY the device used in Las Vegas.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby Chuck » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:50 pm

Ole_grizzly wrote:
Chuck wrote:I doubt that is the reason the antis would use, but to use yours,,,, why should I, (meaning, me, you and all of OFCC), help them with that?

What does that gain us?
Where is the strategic move?


I have asked around these past few days to a wide range of people about the NRA's decision to support bump stock bans. Most hadn't heard about it. Those that are particularly liberal weren't all that interested either way as they want an awb, as discussed over and over on this board. Those that I know that tend to vote conservative but aren't firearm owners had the type of response I was writing about earlier. Paraphrasing, the reaction was along these lines. "wow, I thought they were against all forms of gun control?" This opened the discussion to what the NRA is and isn't, and then them walking away from the conversation with thinking the nra maybe isn't all that crazy.


I tell them about the Brady Bill.
That would have never passed and we wouldn't have instant background checks without the NRA.
If the Brady would have passed it would have sunset in ten years, 2004, and we wouldn't be arguing that "universal background checks" are actually universal gun registration, which leads to confiscation.

A classic example of how opening a "reasonable conversation" by yielding our principles continues to bite us in the butt decades after the fact.



Ole_grizzly wrote:To me, this argument is not about appeasing the anti's, as it certainly won't. It's about opening up a discussion with people who are turned off by the hard right rhetoric of the NRA and other smaller groups, like ours. Simply stated, there is no logic to support keeping bump stocks legal on their own, as confirmed by just about everyone on this thread. There is a real threat of incrementalization, deduced correctly by you Chuck. I don't think it is inevitable, and we've proven that we can win the fights that matter.


Please tell me the logical reason for banning a bump stock
What is so offensive about a bump stock that you want someone who has one in the trunk of his car to go to prison?



Ole_grizzly wrote:To people that aren't single issue voters like many in the gun rights arena, they will never have thought through all the steps that you have, and we simply seem crazy and ridiculous on the surface to support keeping such a dumb inanimate object as a bump stock that contributed mightily to the worst mass shooting in our history..


How did it do that?
(yes, I'm trying to get you to say EXACTLY what is wrong with what a bump stock does)


Ole_grizzly wrote:Do I think supporting the ban on bump stocks will of a sudden move a tide of new supporters to us? On it's own, no. But if we come with logical arguments, show that we are willing to compromise and not be so hard set in our decisions, we may open some doors to people who don't feel as strongly as us already.


Open doors to do what?
Ban the AR platform?


Ole_grizzly wrote:And to clear up a few other assumptions, I am not against the silencer legislation or repealing notification. I think both would be great. I think they are way below in priority to other rights that would actually help in the defense of ourselves and families, and just because it's related to firearm rights I am not going to be all gung ho about things that are convenience and choice issues, versus the fact I can't carry while dropping off mail at the post office, most places downtown cleveland, or elsewhere. If you think that's tunnel vision, I won't argue, but I don't believe in giving the same attention and support to issues I don't care as much about compared to others.


And we're working on that, with bills eliminating CPZs in the works now.
Regarding notification repeal, that was the NUMBER ONE item our members want us to make happen.
The Post Office is a national issue, and not within our persuasion. The NRA is a national organization; what are they doing about it?


Ole_grizzly wrote:I appreciate the engagement and debate, and to state once again I value ofcc greatly, will continue to support its various agendas and try to recruit new members, and I feel we're all on the same team. We won't always agree,but you have my support.


Thank you for your discussion
Please answer my question

And thank you sincerely for your support
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
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby Chuck » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:15 pm

WestonDon wrote:Now let's think about what a bump stock ban would look like. If you're going to ban something first you have to define it. Just saying "bump fire stock like the guy in Vegas used" won't cut it. It has to be defined narrowly and precisely. Define it too narrowly and it becomes easy to circumvent the definition and achieve the same result. Define it too broadly and it affects other unintended things.

I am interested in hearing from those who would approve a bump stock ban just how acceptable legislation would be crafted to ban ONLY the device used in Las Vegas.


Definitions like this?

Feinstein’s bill bans any “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.”


Pistol grips anyone?


And Curbelo’s bill is even broader, prohibiting “the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.


Barrel shroud?
Elevated sights?
That shoulder thingy that goes up?
Spring loaded magazines?
How about gas operated bolts?
That tube is only there to make the gun go faster

What parts of a gun can you say aren't there to make it shoot faster
The black powder revolver was invented to shoot faster that a muzzle loader


Do you see?
What they are doing is banning a rapid rate of fire. And that won't be accomplished as long as there are ARs and trigger fingers.
And that is where they will stop,
Once the AR platform is banned, they'll leave us alone with what we have left
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
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby kcclark » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:25 pm

bignflnut wrote:See today's Boy Scout announcement?

This is what the sacrifices on the Altar of Compromise win you...total failure built on a foundation of hypocrisy


And the people unhappy with BSA policies still are not done. Nextup: They want atheists and agnostics allowed in. It just doesn't stop.
kcclark
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby Chuck » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:56 pm

Ghost wrote:Part of the reason it’s a losing argument is because the NRA folded like a cheap suit. If they hadn’t, this would’ve been a much tougher fight.

Let’s look at this from a few perspectives.

Strategy- Some people believe it’s good strategy to give in on this issue and lose bump stocks, rather than possibly lose something else. They also believe it’s a waste of the NRA’s political capital.

Why I disagree strategically- Even if I was ok with a ban on bump stocks, I’d oppose it and make the leftist fight for it. Yes, the NRA would expel political capital but so would the left. They also might lose the fight. Even if they won, it would use up some of their political capital. If they tried a full assault weapons ban, they’d be even more likely to lose and use even more political capital. See where I’m going with this? At present they are likely to get additional gun legislation, while using zero political capital. Political capital they can later use for even more gun control.

Strategy- Some people believe it’s good strategy to give in on this issue because it makes the NRA seam more reasonable to people who might be someplace in the middle of this issue.

Why I disagree strategically- The reward of a chance of getting more people to support us, is not worth the risk of losing even more gun rights by giving into the loss of bump stocks.

Logic- Many people believe that there is no logical reason to own bump stocks and that it is logical to give them up to prevent future gun restrictions.

Why I disagree logically- This assumption itself is illogical. Why? Never in the history of the United States has any gun control legislation prevented future restrictions or regulation. Never in the history of the United States has any gun control legislation led to additional gun rights. It is illogical to ignore history or expect it to be different this time. The very definition of insanity, is to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

This agenda will never stop, we must be vigilant.

Just imagine if he’d been a CCW holder. What argument do you think we’d be having then?


Great post, thank you


Strategy: Get the gun nuts to admit that a rapid rate of fire ought to be illegal by banning bump stocks
Once they concede on banning bump stocks, point out that rapid rates of fire can also be achieved by other, manual methods, requiring a ban on the AR platform.

Logic: Point out the gun nuts hypocrisy by noting they fact that they agreed to a bump fire ban because rapid fire is bad, but insisting on owning guns that fire just as rapidly without them.
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
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby schmieg » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:26 pm

I think everyone is talking around everyone else here instead of reading what is being posted. We should not admit that bump stocks should be banned, but we should concentrate on those things that may go along with them. The Dems have already expressed their intent to use this as an in to seriously expand restrictions. In the current climate, I would consider a well written (assuming Congress is capable of that) bump stock ban a win if nothing else is included and things die down again. The one proposed bill is something we definitely need to fight or more correctly get our Congresscritters to fight. If we can delay things to the point where emotions subside by demonstrating overreach, there is a possibility that this may lose momentum and fade away as things have before. But, focusing on bump stocks and not the overreach won't get us very far.

I recall when a friend of mine defended a fugitive who had grabbed a kid who had seen him and put his hand over the kids' mouth to keep him quiet. The kid suffocated and the guy was tried for murder. The jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The papers were all full of how the great Leslie Isaiah Gaines lost that case. The defense bar all considered that he won it. He never denied that the guy grabbed and killed the kid, but concentrated on intent. We are in somewhat the same position. We need to concentrate on what the intent really is on banning the bump stocks and limit the damage that might be done.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby slowquest » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:28 am

Does anyone think we could get some traction in having using any object to increase rate of fire be added as an additional charge? Kind of like using a gun to commit a robbery is considered a more serious charge than simply robbing someone?
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
User avatar
slowquest
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:10 am
Location: Cincinnati

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby Javelin Man » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:41 am

slowquest wrote:Does anyone think we could get some traction in having using any object to increase rate of fire be added as an additional charge? Kind of like using a gun to commit a robbery is considered a more serious charge than simply robbing someone?


In some states, a conviction of a crime using a gun, or even having a gun on your person during any crime, is a mandatory 3 years additional time. And this is very often pea-dealed out of the sentence. :roll:

And I could be wrong about the above statement as my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I don't remember when it was good. :oops:
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 6916
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby WestonDon » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:13 am

slowquest wrote:Does anyone think we could get some traction in having using any object to increase rate of fire be added as an additional charge? Kind of like using a gun to commit a robbery is considered a more serious charge than simply robbing someone?


Like in an additional charge to failing to notify promptly?

Nothing to gain but much to lose.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby bignflnut » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:28 am

Chuck wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Is this what we desire our orgs to do?

I take exception to your use of the term "our orgs" unless and until I see you with a site supporter badge under your avatar


I forgot, Mr Director, sir. I'm simply an Ohioan who carries. My mistake. That and a $20 donation gets me a valid opinion. Message received.
Our audience is all gun owners as well as those who don't own guns, but don't want to see their rights further eroded.


And then there's Coordinator Schmieg calling me out
Schmieg wrote:It has nothing to do with other people.

Glad nobody is taking any of this debate personally.

So, when 9 Republicans co-sponsor a bill written by a Republican to ban all sorts of accessories, I suppose we should just seem reasonable by capitulating. This must be that reality I'm not living in (since my accuser won't define it for me). Here's the bill endorsed by Coordinator Schmieg and Nancy Pelosi's Republican wet nurses:

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) introduced gun control aimed at law-abiding Americans on Tuesday. His bill has nine Republican co-sponsors, which means nine Republicans are willing to punish every law-abiding American for the behavior of one criminal in Las Vegas.

And they are doing all this to ban bump stocks, a product the ATF evaluated and approved in 2010.

SNIP

Here are the nine Republicans who are co-sponsoring Curbelo’s bill:

Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
Rep, Ed Royce (R-CA)
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)

The push to ban bump stocks is especially rich in light of the fact that using the devices probably made the Vegas attacker less effective than he would have been without them. After all, bump stocks are made for novelty rather than precision.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6413
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby schmieg » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:30 am

You need a remedial reading class if you think I'm endorsing any bills.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby curmudgeon3 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:38 am

Glad they're not including my bayonet lug on the ban list this time around ........ comes in handy for Banzai charges and bipods.
curmudgeon3
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby schmieg » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:43 am

curmudgeon3 wrote:Glad they're not including my bayonet lug on the ban list this time around ........ comes in handy for Banzai charges.

Also a lot of fun for exhibition drill using a Springfield 1903 - makes the audience think that what you are doing is really dangerous.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby Chuck » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:53 pm

bignflnut wrote:I forgot, Mr Director, sir. I'm simply an Ohioan who carries.



Oh, you’re much more than that. You’re the guy who complains about us accepting less than perfect, while you enjoy our less than perfect benefits.
You’re the guy who enjoys telling us what to do and how to do it without bothering to do anything yourself.

How is the view from the stands?
Better than on the field, I bet
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
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4433
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NRA Calls for ATF review of bumpfire stocks

Postby M-Quigley » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:47 pm

Chuck wrote:Do you see?
What they are doing is banning a rapid rate of fire. And that won't be accomplished as long as there are ARs and trigger fingers.
And that is where they will stop,
Once the AR platform is banned, they'll leave us alone with what we have left


I'm confused, I guess because sarcasm is sometimes hard to tell in text, so I apologize in advance for asking this. Regarding the bolded, were you being sarcastic, was it a typo, or did you mean that exactly as written?
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bignflnut and 6 guests