The “Bump Stock” Overreach

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2017/10/bump-stock-overreach.html ^ | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The media frenzy over the mass murder in Las Vegas has died down faster than any other such story I have seen in the last two decades. The push for legislation to ban “bump stocks” has also died down.  It has not stopped.

As expected, the enemies of an armed population are using “bump stocks” as a vehicle for much broader bans. In Illinois, the last state to pass a concealed carry permit law, the Democrats are looking to ban as many as half the guns in Illinois with the broadly worded measure.

Nearly all semi-automatic firearms would fit under the wording of the bill.From chicagotribune.com:

“This bill would essentially prohibit, or outlaw, in our rough estimation, 50 percent of the firearms out in Illinois today,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “This may be a response to what took place in Las Vegas, but the net result is criminalizing a lot of very common things gun owners do to modify their guns to make them shoot better, to make them shoot more accurately.”

Vandermyde called the legislation an “overreach,” saying Democrats are seeking to take advantage of a tragedy to push through tighter gun controls even as facts surrounding the shooting continue to change.

The bill passed a committee on a 7-5 vote, sending it to the House floor. Republicans voted against it. They favor a competing bill that would only apply the ban to bump stocks, not other devices. That measure, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Wheeler, R-Crystal Lake, has the backing of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

A correspondent in Wisconsin has informed me that normally dependable Second Amendment supporters, such as Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy, are caught up in the emotional frenzy. From Wisconsin:

[marktwain]

Outlawing "bump stocks" is like trying to outlaw gravity.

[robroys woman]

I see this as a sacrificial lamb or textbook “scapegoat” being offered up by the gun lobby. They’d rather not do it, but they are kinda snickering about it at the same time.

The public is kinda dumb.

[JudgemAll]

Why would,paddock not use a 50 cents full auto trigger job and instead use an expensive and impractical contraption... only to see ourselves facing trigger job legislations....?

Simply because the bumpstock was more sensational and could divide the gun hobbyists around from the hunting fudds of the NRA.

If it had been a triggerjob, it would have been obscure to the audience targeted by that shooting.

I am suspecting this Paddock freak was onto some kind of Fast and Furious “legal gun and devices” PR coup gone underground now that Obama was not in power to orchestrate it directly from the ATF.

[peeps36]

Leave it to moron politicians to make a big deal out of the stock of a gun. They use the term bump stock like it's some deadly device. We should ban asshole politicians instead of bump stocks.

[Texas Fossil]

Yes. Or like outlawing the laws of Physics.

Thanks for the post.

[apillar]

As someone on another thread pointed out, the original Illinois law, as written, would outlaw fat people from owning semi-autos, because you can put prop the stock of gun against your stomach and get the exact same effect as a bump stock if you have enough of a fat roll to “bounce” the gun back against your trigger finger. Which would mean, under the law, you possessed an “illegal” means of increasing the rate of fire.

[ThunderSleeps]

They favor a competing bill that would only apply the ban to bump stocks, not other devices.

Oh, well now there's a voice of reason...

Yes that was sarcasm. How about "shall not be infringed" as legal guidance! So-called "gun control" laws are nothing more than lightly structured incrementalism. Everyone, and I mean everyone associated with them that has an IQ above room temperature knows that these laws do not work.

Well, they don't work at making anyone safer, with the possible exception of criminals. (think on the job safety for them) The real intent and result of these laws it to chip away at our rights - the proverbial frog in ever-warming water. When these laws fail to make us safer, or prevent tragedies (as they always will) it is a ready-made excuse for the next set of laws, additional restrictions, bans, etc.

No doubt some people reading this may think I'm slightly fanatical, gone over the edge. That I'm over stating the case. Well, step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture of "gun control" laws. Consider the efficacy of laws based on the notion that criminals demonstrably ready willing and able to break dozens of other laws will for some reason decide to obey "gun control" laws. Now do you see the fundamental flaw, the absolute idiocy associated with every single "gun control" law? They are incapable of achieving their publicly stated goal and it requires willful ignorance and naivety to believe otherwise.

[ctdonath2]

Can’t outlaw “bump stocks”. There’s nothing objective & articulable to legislate.

There’s the “ban anything which accelerates the rate of fire” approach.
“Rate of fire” on a semi-automatic is a moot point: that’s a matter of how fast the operator can pull the trigger, which for some people is practically at machine-gun rates. “Bump fire” began as a trick of holding the gun, no additional gadgets. It’s the old “what is obscenity: I can’t explain, but I know it when I see it” issue. Attempts to implement this invariably impact classic gun modifications (lighter trigger, heavier recoil spring, etc), and quickly reduce to an outright ban on semi-autos - which would spark civil war.

There’s the “classify it as a machine-gun” approach, insofar as it must fit into existing legal frameworks.
The problem there is federal law 922(o) banning post-1986 machine-guns: doing so would retroactively ban legally-obtained devices, acting as an unconstitutional “bill of attainder” inflicting severe penalties upon law-abiding citizens. This would result in a direct challenge to 922(o), which based on a footnote to _Heller_ would likely overturn the MG ban and become a nightmare scenario for most legislators. (Me: “bring it on”.)

Oddly, I consider the current legal morass regarding the subject proof that the LV shooting was _not_ a “false flag” a la Matt Bracken’s EFAD book: legislation leveraging the attack was _not_ lined up & ready to go, the Left did not have any sensible talking points ready (they would already have known what a “bump stock” was and how to declare it contraband), and there was not a rapid coordinated push to ban semi-autos. Nobody was ready to take advantage of such a perfectly-executed mass attack, so I can’t believe it was arranged by others to further a sociopolitical agenda.

[marktwain]

Excellent points.

Good work.

[ctdonath2]

You might notice that everything up to the moment of Paddock’s actual attack was perfectly legal.
Using a “50 cent full auto trigger job” (not that simple, actually) would have pushed him into seriously illegal* territory which easily could have completely ruined his plans.
He probably could have talked his way out of any indictment up to the point when he broke the window or shot at the guard (whichever came first), but he would not want the risk of getting an assured 10 years prison just for that “50 cent full auto trigger job”.

* - On the scale of how seriously the federal gov’t takes crimes, making/possessing illegal machineguns is near the most serious - way above rape, murder of common civilians, and even treason-for-bribes.

[ctdonath2]

BTW: the “increases rate of fire” approach is easily countered by literally shipping guns, factory built, with light triggers and bump stocks. Still legally a semi-auto in compliance with the laws in question, with the gun manufactured to fire at a practically maximum rate, so any subsequent changes made (like removing the bump stock and replacing it with the in-box-included regular stock, or turning a trigger adjustment screw) can only _reduce_ the “rate of fire”.

As an example, Mossberg has been pursuing comparable sales tactics: identifying where the legal line is, shuffling right up to the edge, and wantonly straining the limits of compliance.

[RandallFlagg]

He probably could have talked his way out of any indictment up to the point when he broke the window or shot at the guard (whichever came first), but he would not want the risk of getting an assured 10 years prison just for that “50 cent full auto trigger job”.

I wonder if this reporter and news station in Philadelphia will get busted for this obvious report showing a female reporter buying an 80% lower and having someone else mill it out to completeion.
Action News Investigation: 'Ghost Guns' on Philadelphia streets

Did y'all hear about this?

[ctdonath2]

I watched the video.

She did nothing illegal.
As an agent of the company, she and (whom I gather) another employee with mechanical ability bought an “80% complete” kit and finished the milling work. So long as it was purchased by, completed by, and remained the possession of 6ABC, it is completely legal. (Thanks, legal fiction of corporation = person.)

The report was yet another hysterical attempt to make semi-autos look somehow horrifying, with the bonus horror of _legally_ no serial number. As if some criminal would go thru all that trouble; the cooperatively-outraged cop indicated that such guns were in fact used in city crimes, but nothing indicates their prohibition would make any meaningful difference.

And as usual, the optimistic “I can do this right” pro-RKBA guy was edited to look like an idiot. Please, people, NEVER pistol-fire a rifle when being video-recorded by someone out to make you look bad.

[Ancesthntr]

“because you can put prop the stock of gun against your stomach and get the exact same effect as a bump stock if you have enough of a fat roll to “bounce” the gun back against your trigger finger. Which would mean, under the law, you possessed an “illegal” means of increasing the rate of fire.”

---

Well, that would seem to indicate that fat people should be banned, not the guns. After all, it is the fat roll that causes the rate of fire to be increased.

Maybe the gun-ban crowd can take a hint from their ideological predecessors, and not only get rid of fat people, but make use of the fat - to make soap, for example. That’s the direction that they’re headed in, anyway...so let’s strip away the niceties and get down to business. Of course, people with semi-auto rifles generally don’t self-load on to boxcars, but that’s another matter.

[RandallFlagg]

I thought that the ATF put a stop to, "CNC Parties," where a bunch of people would bring their 80% receivers to their pal who owned a CNC machine or mill, and get them all done together. That they are now required to have a license.

Held, any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the GCA; identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records.

ATF Ruling 2015 -1 Gunsmithing and Manufacturing

[ctdonath2]

Except that those CNC Parties were a bunch of people getting together, which is legally different from employees of a corporation working together as a legal “person” (singular).

One of the consequences of voluminous laws is the weird unexpected interactions. If you use my drill press to finish an 80% lower, we’re both in trouble re: manufacture & transfer of a weapon ... but if you, I, and the drill press are “owned” by 6NBC Corp, then we’re just different parts of the same legal “person” manufacturing & owning the weapon.

[ctdonath2]

BTW: the lead picture is irrelevant to the story. What’s showing is legally a registered post-’86 machinegun (presumably a “dealer sample” or some such legal exception), wherein a piece of string is literally declared & documented & $200-tax-paid a machinegun. That references a brief period where the BATF had to reconcile some conflicting rulings, did so stupidly & badly, and someone did that to prove how stupid the ruling was - resulting in the reversal of the ruling. The picture has nothing to do with “bump stocks”.

[marktwain]

The point is exactly as you say:

That references a brief period where the BATF had to reconcile some conflicting rulings, did so stupidly & badly, and someone did that to prove how stupid the ruling was - resulting in the reversal of the ruling. The picture has nothing to do with “bump stocks”.

---

It illustrates the stupidity of attempting to outlaw the laws of physics.

[ctdonath2]

Roundabout connection, but point taken.

But I don’t think they could even pull off enough stupidity to achieve a “bump stock ban”. There’s still an objective description fitting the “shoelace machinegun”; not so for a device that does nothing meaningfully more than what you can do with just a finger.

[hadit2here]

“Compromise between Good and Evil always works to Evil’s benefit and Good’s detriment.”
— Ayn Rand

“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.”
—Christoper Dawson