Bump Stop Stock Ban Legislation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MachCrit, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #2
    What should be regulated (and in the case of automatic weapons,or weapons modified to behave as automatic weapons, banned) is not the structure of a gun but it's function (e.g., high rate of fire). I think this proposed legislation makes sense in general, but the details will be important (for instance, there should be an amnesty for turning the modifications into police and perhaps hobbyists who bought legally the modifications should be reimbursed by the government). The proposed penalties for violating this legislation should be scrutinised carefully as well.
     
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
    Just make the modification to any firearms rate of fire punishable by 10yrs in federal prison.
     
  3. rjohnstone, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017

    rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #4
    It already is. ;)


    Here's a short list of what is already illegal under federal law.
    It would be nice if they were actually enforced on a consistent basis.

    I've highlighted a few as some people claim these laws need to be created when in fact they already exist. ENFORCEMENT and PROSECUTION are the issue.

    Source
     
  4. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5

    Then make it 50yrs. You have to question how bump stocks and trigger cranks were legal.
     
  5. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #6
    Why just bump stocks - why not all accessories or modifications that let let a semi-automatic weapon fire at a rate close to that of an automatic?
     
  6. rjohnstone, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017

    rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #7
    I agree, accessories should be covered. Modifications to the internals is already illegal.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 11, 2017 ---
    ATF was going by the letter of the law when making the ruling.
    An external accessory is not consider a modification to the internal trigger mechanism under the NFA.
    The ATF cannot add a class of modification to a law. Congress would have to amend the law to cover external accessories.

    As for the 50 year term, it's already a life sentence if you use a machine gun in a crime.
    The 10 years is just for illegally converting and/or possessing an illegally converted firearm.
     
  7. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #8
    Then I question if anyone at the ATF brought it to the attention of the House oversight and reform committee and if not then why not. Seems like a pretty overt attempt to circumvent the "altering the internals".
     
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    I'm unaware of any widespread pattern of those laws being subject to lax enforcement. It certainly is possible that the provision that someone charged with a slew of felonies, including some violations of Federal firearms law, might have some of the charges dropped or diminished, in an effort to simplify prosecution, or to obtain a plea bargain. But, by and large, Federal prosecutors and law enforcement are not shy about pursuing people who break firearms law.

    The issue as it relates to bump-stock modifications is this: A literal reading of the Federal law on automatic weapons suggests that the bump-stock modification does meet the technical standard definition for an automatic modification. The trigger of the weapon does still need to be pulled once for each round that goes down the barrel. That is why the ATF has issued letters to bump-stock kit makers, and why the ATF cannot administratively outlaw them. Neither can the Trump Administration do so. If they did, the bump-stock makers, and any gun owner wishing to use one, would sue them in Federal Court, and almost certainly prevail in their argument that the banning was contrary to Federal law.

    If the Government wants to ban bump-stocks (or Gat-Cranks) or any other modification that makes a firearm fire very rapidly, then they will have to pass legislation that says explicitly that.
     
  9. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #10
    It was reviewed by the ATF and approved as a firearm part.
    The ATF had the product in hand and tested it.

    Here's the actual approval letter sent to Slide Fire, the company that made the stock.
    They submitted the product to the ATF for evaluation as required by law. They weren't trying to "overtly circumvent" anything.
    https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
     
  10. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    I've read the letter, it's as if they're submitting it for ADA consideration. The company may or may not have known there was potential for this thing to be abused. I would have hoped the ATF would test the device and be smarter than they were.
     
  11. rjohnstone, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017

    rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #12
    The ATF does test the device. That is standard procedure for any submission.
    The manufacturer is required to send a retail product sample for evaluation.
    That means the ATF installed the product on a firearm and tested its functionality.
     
  12. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #13
    The issue is not 'fully automatic' or not. It is firing rate.
     
  13. rjohnstone, Oct 11, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2017

    rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #14
    When it comes to the NFA requirements, rate of fire is irrelevant.
    Full auto is defined by the mechanism that controls the rate of fire.
    It's black and white.
    One shot per trigger pull = legal
    More than one shot per trigger pull = regulated automatic weapon. Again, rate of fire is moot.

    Here is the exact definition as it pertains to machine guns (full auto) under the NFA.


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11
     
  14. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    Understood. Perhaps the law needs to be amended to specify firing rate rather than arrangement of the trigger. Had bump stocks even been invented when this law was passed?
     
  15. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #16
    The law was passed in 1936 and then updated in 1968, and 1986.
    Bump stocks didn't exist, but the technique has been around for decades.
    You can bump fire most semi-auto rifles with some practice without the need for a modified stock.
    Rate of fire is not a good measure as anyone with some quality range time can fire a semi-auto very rapidly.
    The trigger mechanism is the key to reliable full auto fire.

    Back in my youth, I could dump a 30 round magazine in just under 8 seconds with relative accuracy.
    Old age has slowed me down. o_O
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    This morning I heard Paul Ryan say that this should be an ATF regulatory change, and not a legislative fix.

    And then I heard him say that he was shocked, SHOCKED that this wasn't done years ago.

    :rolleyes:
     
  17. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #18
    Ryan's an idiot.
    Only Congress can amend a law.
    ATF is following the law according to the definitions set forth in 27 CFR 479.11
    Bump stocks, by their very function, do not meet the current definition of a machine gun part.
    There is no mechanical component that cycles the trigger or hammer automatically.
    The trigger is still cycled by the shooters finger to fire EACH round.
     
  18. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    Just remember the NRA prefers that the ATF look at this rather than Congress writing a law. I am not sure who this should be handled but the issue should be dealt with and a prohibition on bump stocks (and other similar modifications) if they create the same kind of a threat as a fully automatic weapon.

    FWIW, please pardon my ignorance on the topic, but does the bump stock have a higher rate of fire when used than when a trained shooter pulls the trigger with their finger in the usual way? Is there any difference in accuracy? The reason why I ask is that the bump stock seems like it has a high rate of fire but would be hard to control, resulting in a spray and pray pattern. I am no expert though and some say one can learn to control a bump stock. Just trying to understand whether the bump stock made any real difference in the Las Vegas attack....
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    In traditional rifle shooting, the force of the recoil is absorbed by the shooter's shoulder and by any padding on the stock of the rifle. The recoil is absorbed in a manner that, ideally at least, is in a linear 2-dimensional plane, allowing the shooter to keep the muzzle trained on the target.

    A bump stock changes that. Rather than being damped by the shoulder muscle and stock, the force of the recoil is immediately transferred in the opposite direction by the bump stock spring mechanism.

    As an analogy, it's like asking if a car which didn't have shock absorbers, and just had coil springs, would handle any better. The obvious answer is: No it wouldn't. It would very quickly become uncontrollable as the bouncing chassis lifted the tires from contact with the ground, cutting traction and with it the drivers' ability to steer the vehicle.



    Did the bump stock make a difference in Las Vegas? I've heard some shooters say, no: A trained marksman who had used sights, and fired off an aimed shot every few seconds could have killed more people, given the time he had available. But I am far from convinced that was the objective. The sheer terror that the sound of quasi-automatic rifle fire, plus the sounds of bullets whizzing and cracking through the air, coupled with people around you dropping dead with horrendous injuries, was an important objective for this madman.
     
  20. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #21
    The ATF can't go down the regulation route until Congress updates the definitions in the law.
    It's that simple.
    As for the bump stock, it significantly reduces accuracy. The rate of fire is higher than a fast trigger finger.
    It's actually hard to "spray and pray" with a bump stock as you have to maintain a certain posture for it to work correctly.
    Best you'll get are short bursts of sustained fire (as heard in the audio of the LV shooting).
    A trained shooter would be far more deadly in most cases, not all, but most.
     
  21. MachCrit, Oct 12, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017

    MachCrit thread starter Suspended

    MachCrit

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Location:
    Lurking About the Planet
    #22
    Professional shooters derisively call people who use them “Bump Stock Bubbas”. I've never seen one, much less used a bump stock, but my understanding is that accuracy is degraded because of the method of creating the rapid fire. It is more indiscriminate, which is why automatic weapons are banned. Bump stocks and the like should be too.

    The police shouldn't have burst or full auto either. It should be confined to military issue only.

    IF you want to ban standard semi-auto as well, then you need a police state to confiscate them, and a police state that should be prohibited from semi-auto weapons as well.
     
  22. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #23
    The current regs only address mechanical operation rather than outcome and performance.

    I would personally have no issue with a reg that prevents any modification that allows the shooter to exceed the human body’s natural ability for rounds per minute.

    That would be somewhere between 45 and 120 rounds per minute I’m guessing on average.

    That’s not remotely unreasonable and sure and hell doesn’t infringe upon your right to own an AR15 and use standard capacity mags and other accessories.
     
  23. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #24
    Well, the supreme court has ruled there are limits to free speech, so I wish liberals would shut up about the 2nd.

    We should put anyone that challenges it in hard labor camps, for the rest of their lives.
     
  24. bunnspecial macrumors 604

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #25
    IMO, any rate of fire legislation can lead down a dangerous path.

    I have a couple of revolvers that I have modified to have very light trigger pulls. My primary goal was both to reduce the single action pull along with making it a lot more "crisp."

    I did this by both lightening the springs and carefully polishing parts. As a consequence of this I also reduced the double action trigger pull a fair amount. This is immaterial to me as the guns were pretty strictly intended for NRA Bullseye and other slow paced, high accuracy shooting. I've lightened the action enough that at least one will only reliably fire in double action with one certain brand of primers(the double action hammer fall is shorter than single action). I've experimented with making guns single action only, but on Smith and Wessons removing the part that makes it double action reduces the hammer weight enough that single action firing can get unreliable when combined with the lower power mainsprings.

    I say all of that because someone could take a gun like that and squeeze off a cylinder in no time. Heck, there's a video of Jerry Mucilek firing 12 shots from a Smith and Wesson model 25 revolver(6 shot, 45 ACP) and hitting the target with every shot in under 3 seconds. For anyone counting, that means that he managed to empty the gun, reload, and fire another 6 shots in that amount of time.

    For that matter, I've shot competition 1911s and other single action semi-autos that have been worked over with competition triggers, and in some cases were specifically modified to be shot as fast as possible. Many of these are heavily modified and are intended for things like bowling pins or other shooting sports where speed and accuracy are important. Many so-called "race guns" also have things like muzzle brakes, muzzle weights, large and clear sights, and other things that make them easy to aim and keep on target but are usually counter-productive to making the easy to carry. Depending on the intended discipline, the gun might have a lightened recoil spring which will increase the mechanical cycling rate of the gun and allow it to operate reliably with lower powered ammo(at the cost of reliable operation with more standard ammunition for the caliber). If you're only punching paper or ringing gongs, both of these are desirable since the gun not only resets faster but the lower recoil means you can re-acquire the target faster. On the other hand, you wouldn't do that if you're knocking over bowling pins or metallic silhouettes since delivering more kinetic energy to the target is desirable.

    I guess the point in all my rambling is that there are a ton of legitimate reasons to make a gun able to shoot faster. Most folks I know-myself included-consider bump stocks and the like a stupid way to make a bunch of noise at the range without hitting something. Still, I'd be leery of outlawing devices that are intended to increase the rate of fire since trigger modifications could EASILY be lumped into that category.

    BTW, I have shot my fair share of(legal) full auto weapons and if I had the cash know where I could buy one legally(albeit it would be 6-12 months before I could actually take possession of it). My favorite gun store in town is a Class III dealer and the owner-who I know from his days as a manager at Cabelas-has owned NFA items for years. I've just happened to run into him at the range more than once and he's been generous in letting me shoot full auto and/or surpressed weapons. Full auto is VERY difficult to shoot as the muzzle climbs off the target in no time.
     

Share This Page

24 October 11, 2017