The bump stock used in NV

[Bird222]

You're real helpful, thanks..

Someone would have to bring a case. I'm sure there are plenty of NRA loons prepared to do so. Surprised they haven't. Maybe I should ask them..

The SCOTUS is avoiding taking the cases/making a ruling on it because I think they know what is the correct ruling is but the fallout would be too much.

 

[Atreus21]

Great video! But I must have missed the part about the bump stock . . .

Seriously, I cannot see how those are legal under current law. I wouldn't have believed it, but surely that is truly automatic fire and thus a highly illegal conversion.

I'm inclined to agree. If we're going to ban automatic weapons made after 1986(?) I figure "automatic" ought to define sustained rate of fire, not whether or not it is technically automatic.

 

[Bird222]

But it can ignore common sense?

I'm not sure what the 'it' is you are referring to. I'll assume you mean the ATF. I'll just say we're supposed to be a nation of laws. If Congress wanted a different definition they would have used it.

 

[mdram]

I'm inclined to agree. If we're going to ban automatic weapons made after 1986(?) I figure "automatic" ought to define rate of fire, not whether or not it is technically automatic.

but the law has a definition, and that is what they go by

 

[Bird222]

Try again. It takes restricted parts and some skill. In order to buy the parts for the trigger assembly and so forth you need to be already a permitted full auto owner and have a NEED. Those parts can not be directly ordered by you and shipped to your door. They have to be ordered and processed/transferred via a licensed dealer. IN an AR the full auto equivalent part that would have to be installed into the AR actually has some extra bits to it... Filing down anything on the stock gun simply fucks up the firearm.

Even if you could get your hands on the parts... The semi auto receiver won’t accept those parts anyway. It doesn’t have the space for the full auto sear cut out of the lower receiver so you couldn’t convert it without a good bit of machine shop time. The average person isn’t going to do that, doesn’t have the tools, etc. It would be probably less hassle and similar cost with no risk to just legally require a full auto gun.

The claim that conversion to full auto is easy is widely a myth. Even though fully automatic firearms have not been used in a crime in decades people have this belief that there are a ton a people out there breaking federal law and converting them in mere moments on the cheap.

You might want to double check because I don't think some of that is right. I think you can buy all the parts but if the ATF finds you with a M16 fire control group and a AR-15, you will be in deep doodoo.

 

[Atreus21]

NRA agrees the use of these should be regulated

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nr...ar-AAsXoCT?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp&ffid=gz

Good for them. I'm not a gun owner, but I probably would be if they were less expensive. We've had some home burglaries in my neighborhood in the past several years and I got 4 kids and a wife.

At any rate, it's good to see some common agreement on this.

 

[Atreus21]

but the law has a definition, and that is what they go by

I don't fault the ATF for following the legal definition. But the legal definition is precisely what should change.

 

[mdram]

Good for them. I'm not a gun owner, but I probably would be if they were less expensive. We've had some home burglaries in my neighborhood in the past several years and I got 4 kids and a wife.

At any rate, it's good to see some common agreement on this.

not expensive at all, 200-300 is fine for a starter weapon

but please take a class and educate yourself and your family first

 

[Atreus21]

not expensive at all, 200-300 is fine for a starter weapon

Well, speaking as someone on the margins, that's an expense I can't presently justify.

but please take a class and educate yourself and your family first

Of course. I've fired plenty; so has my wife. Just never owned one. Looking at a Remington 870.

 

[Genx87]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.

I think it is a tough question to answer. As he was shooting into a crowd of 20,000 people. There isnt a need for accuracy. Spray away and he will hit somebody. I'm fine with regulation of bump stocks. It gets around the spirit of the automatic weapons ban. And IMO if banned would not affect the gun in any meaningful way.

 

[mdram]

Well, speaking as someone on the margins, that's an expense I can't presently justify.

understood

Of course. I've fired plenty; so has my wife. Just never owned one. Looking at a Remington 870.

fine choice. very reliable.

 

[Svnla]

Gun stores are selling out bump stocks and online too - https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-stores-selling-bump-stocks-153911597.html

 

[mdram]

Gun stores are selling out bump stocks and online too - https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-stores-selling-bump-stocks-153911597.html

waster of money, there is no grandfather clause in the current bill.
that and i just see the attraction of one

 

[soundforbjt]

Everyone praising the NRA line are optimistic, they've not stated they're for a ban, just open to them being regulated..

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Everyone praising the NRA line are optimistic, they've not stated they're for a ban, just open to them being regulated..

I believe I heard their CEO guy say this morning they are for restricting sales and use but are not for forcing existing owners turn them in or confiscation.
Admittedly everyone acts in their own interests but I believe they know this will be a losing battle so they may as well get in front of it.

 

[HumblePie]

Good for them. I'm not a gun owner, but I probably would be if they were less expensive. We've had some home burglaries in my neighborhood in the past several years and I got 4 kids and a wife.

At any rate, it's good to see some common agreement on this.

There are plenty of inexpensive firearms for around $100 that are still decent. Unfortunately they go up in price shortly after. I picked up a Maverick 88 for $88 on a black friday deal several years back. At this point they are closer to $200 though

Still there is always the new "low" but decent. Hi-point handguns still go for about $100 to $150 to this day.

 

[Darwin333]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.

I hadn't considered that but you might actually have a point. If he wasn't using the bump stock he probably could have shot 30 people in different parts of the crowd before the entire crowd started to panic and after that he could have just started firing well aimed shots at the biggest groups of people. Keep in mind that even after the first volley of bump stock fire that most people thought it was fireworks and not gunfire. Does anyone know how many shots he actually fired in total?

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah, I am really sure Obama weighed in on that decision. I promise if the ATF would've blocked them in 2010, the NRA would've lost its mind. A place I used to work, the people there made normal Okies look like gun grabbers, every single one of them had bump stocks back in 2012. Some of them because they honestly thought they might have to defend their house against the US Army, others just thought they were good home defense against criminals. I guarantee those guys are going ape right now.

The ATF didn't have the authority to block them. The gun still only fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled which means it is still a semi-automatic gun in the eyes of the ATF guidelines. It's also not that hard to bump fire without a bump stock, not that I think bump stocks shouldn't be banned I'm just making a point. I wonder if they do ban them if they will include a grandfather clause like most firearm bans or if they will make them outright illegal to own so the people who are rushing out to buy them now will have wasted their money.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The ATF didn't have the authority to block them. The gun still only fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled which means it is still a semi-automatic gun in the eyes of the ATF guidelines. It's also not that hard to bump fire without a bump stock, not that I think bump stocks shouldn't be banned I'm just making a point. I wonder if they do ban them if they will include a grandfather clause like most firearm bans or if they will make them outright illegal to own so the people who are rushing out to buy them now will have wasted their money.

The law could always be changed to require trigger cycling ranges of x mm or whatever, to eliminate the capacity of arms to 'bump cycle' sufficiently to create this faux automatic action. Not really sure how that'd happen/how it would be enforced though. Just seems like another whackamole measure unfortunately. I would like to see the 'easy versions' removed/outlawed/regulated though.

 

[Zorba]

The SCOTUS is avoiding taking the cases/making a ruling on it because I think they know what is the correct ruling is but the fallout would be too much.

Again the USSC has already approved the auto weapons ban, and specifically made sure new rulings didn't affect that ban.

 

[werepossum]

This isn't completely unfair, admittedly it's not the ATFs job regarding laws the question is did they bring it to anyone's attention? The "approval" did happen under Obamas watch. If something similar happens in the future under Trumps watch I'd say he was involved in it.

It's certainly fair to say it was Obama's BATFE. It would be folly to blame it on Obama though.

Given that BATFE has banned other devices aimed at providing automatic-rate fire by mechanically increasing the number of trigger pulls, I really don't see why this device gets a pass. My own guess would be that someone dropped the ball in evaluating it, as its stated purpose is ludicrously transparent.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's certainly fair to say it was Obama's BATFE. It would be folly to blame it on Obama though.

Given that BATFE has banned other devices aimed at providing automatic-rate fire by mechanically increasing the number of trigger pulls, I really don't see why this device gets a pass. My own guess would be that someone dropped the ball in evaluating it, as its stated purpose is ludicrously transparent.

Personally I think it's multiple dropped balls, ATF and I heard there have been several bills proposed to ban them that obviously were overlooked for various reasons but I'd guess the main two are
Not wanting to piss off the NRA
Not taking time to read a proposal

 

[werepossum]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but as someone who has fired multiple slide/bump fire guns, more people are probably alive today because of the bump fire stocks this guy was using. True automatic fire is not particularly accurate - a lot of bullets are sprayed in a short amount of time, but they're not really going where you intend. Compared to true auto fire, bump fire is infinitely more inaccurate - you need to use one hand to 'pull' the stock forward which basically destroys any ability to meaningfully aim the weapon. It is fun as a toy at a 20 yard range, but at 250 - 300 yards that this shooter was firing, those bullets were flying in the general direction of the crowd rather than at particular targets. He managed to shoot a lot of bullets quickly, but the total lack of accuracy with that platform and at that distance very likely saved lives.

The sad reality is that if he was shooting a plain ar-15 (without a bump stock) with a moderate scope, he probably would/could have killed dozens if not hundreds more in the span of time that he was shooting. Personally, I don't really see any reason for civilian ownership of these bump stocks - but I think we're fooling ourselves if we're blaming the bump stock for increasing the number of people this man was able to kill. If anything, the opposite is true.

Possibly. However, even an M-4 is still lethal at 300 yards, it just won't penetrate body armor. (Or sometimes, not thick clothing.) In that kind of crowd, there wouldn't be much aiming necessary until the crowd had thinned out to the point of not offering area targets, and until that point pretty much every shot is going to hit someone. The figure for the drop is completely misleading because it includes the downward trajectory, which is NOT bullet drop; an AR-15 is completely capable of aimed fire at that range. He hit a LOT of people.

We're just really lucky that the hotel security guard tried to take him down, since that is apparently the act that made him stop shooting bystanders and kill himself. Otherwise, he could have switched back to semi fire and shot a lot more people in the additional hour or so that it took the cops to breach his door. Or simply exited the hotel in the confusion and surfaced to shoot more people at other locations.

One thing not often mentioned is that this dude was a millionaire. He could have arranged for fully automatic weapons even in countries with strict gun control such as France or Sweden.

 

[Fern]

I could find no reference to the decision on the wiki article on 2nd amdt. And as linked above they've said that military equipment cannot be limited. So I still don't buy it. The action to harm connection to shouting fire is reasonably clear. Having a full auto weapon only give you the potential to possibly harm slightly more people. Even that is arguable since it would be inaccurate as hell. And even so; the 2nd amendment doesn't end with "...unless it can be too dangerous". It says right to bear arms, that's it. Full auto rifles = arms. Seems pretty clear to me.

IIIRC, the answer to your question can be found in the Heller case (a recent SCOTUS case re: 2nd amendment).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html

This is probably wrong because it's been so long, but, again, IIRC a militia member can have military-type weapons, but an individual not in a militia is limited to self-defense and hunting type weapons.

Fern

 

[Puffnstuff]

Country girls sure do love these bump fire stocks. Since Lisa Jean pulled down her video here it is again from another source just in case you missed it.