Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<
ACTS Main Banner

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Bump Stock Control Is Gun Control

  1. #1
    Front Page News Moderator/Editor Smokepole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Billyburg
    Posts
    16,687

    Bump Stock Control Is Gun Control

    Gun Rights Groups Break with NRA: Bump Stock Control Is Gun Control

    By AWR Hawkins
    Breitbart
    October 9th. 2017



    Ohio’s Buckeye Firearms Association is breaking with the NRA on bump stocks, claiming attempts to secure legislation or regulation on the accessories is “just more noise” that results in gun control rather than criminal control.

    Breitbart News reported that that bump stocks are accessories that were approved by Barack Obama’s ATF in 2010. They were approved because they do not convert a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic one; rather, they allow a semiautomatic gun owner to mimic an automatic for a few short bursts.

    According Fox 45, Buckeye Firearms’ Joe Eaton explained, “With a bump stock or a slide fire you hold your finger still and you move the rifle back and forth to fire it. So it really is the same thing each press of the trigger results in one bullet being fired, does not change any of the mechanics.”

    He added, “Since they don’t change the function of the firearm it is still a semi-automatic, one bullet with one press of the trigger, there would be no reason to have them outlawed.”

    On October 5 Breitbart News reported an NRA statement in which the organization said, “Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” But Eaton took a different stance, indicating the accessories “were thoroughly reviewed by the ATF” and saying that he does not see the ATF changing their initial position.

    He observed, “The fact that … [the Vegas attacker] chose a semi-automatic rifle and he happened to choose another accessory for it again, unfortunately is just more noise in the talk about what needs to be the talk in why is there this much violence out there.”

    The Columbus Dispatch
    reports that Ohioans for Concealed Carry are breaking with NRA’s push for re-evaluation of bump stocks too.
    Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
    – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

    ALL of my postings represent my personal opinions, unless otherwise stated, and do NOT reflect the policies, or opinions of any organization, including that of "MGO", or its officers.

  2. #2
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    3,172
    Sean Davis over at The Federalist explains the logic that can be used to reinterpret the Curbelo/Moulton bump stock bill as a ban on all semiautomatic rifles. We can be certain that even if the Curbelo/Moulton bump stock bill passes without amendments to prohibit high capacity magazines, gun control advocates will be clogging the courts with lawsuits seeking to use the Curbelo/Moulton bump stock act to prohibit private possession of all semiautomatic rifles.

    This probably explains why the NRA is seeking to move the bump stock issue to BATFE instead of allowing Congress to draft generic language which can be deceitfully reinterpreted. There is a real risk to gun ownership here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/...matic-weapons/

    Bipartisan Bump Stock Bill Would Actually Ban All Semiautomatic Rifles
    October 13, 2017 By Sean Davis

    A new congressional proposal to ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles and parts.

    A new gun control proposal in Congress that is being pitched as a bipartisan bump stock ban would actually ban all semi-automatic rifles in the United States, according to an analysis of the proposed bill.

    The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

    “It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

    The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

    The @NRA is opposed to the new bump fire stock ban legislation https://t.co/LkllbBzlM9

    — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 12, 2017

    It arguably bans *any* part of a gun that allows the gun to fire. pic.twitter.com/KUBZJUTBnZ

    — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 12, 2017

    The proposal also creates significant implementation challenges, since it contains zero grandfather provisions for existing gun owners or manufacturers. The bill also fails to provide any means by which existing gun owners and manufacturers could turn in their weapons to federal authorities to avoid running afoul of the bill’s effective ban on the possession of any semi-automatic firearms or parts. Absent a statutory federal gun buyback, which is not included in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, it does not appear that current law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers would have any way to abide by the constraints of the law in good faith absent a massive federal confiscation effort.

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday that it opposed the Curbelo/Moulton proposal. In a separate statement, the organization said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms And Explosives (ATF) already had the legal authority necessary to ban bump stocks and that additional legislation was unnecessary. The group noted that bump stocks were originally approved by the Obama administration in 2010.

    It is unclear at this time whether Curbelo and Moulton intended to propose such an expansive ban on all semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Also unknown is why the authors of the proposal chose to target rates of fire across all weapons instead of specifically banning bump stocks themselves, which consist of a single grip and stock assembly that is designed to rock a rifle back and forth against an individual’s finger in order to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle weapon.

    Neither Curbelo’s nor Moulton’s office responded to repeated requests for comment and clarification on the design and intent of their gun control proposal.

    Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

  3. #3
    MGO Member CircuitRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Near the heart of the Thumb - Sanilac County
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post

    This probably explains why the NRA is seeking to move the bump stock issue to BATFE instead of allowing Congress to draft generic language which can be deceitfully reinterpreted. There is a real risk to gun ownership here:

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/...matic-weapons/
    I wrote the NRA a scathing email over the weekend regarding their recommendation to refer it to the BATF but now I see that they may have been right. We'll have to see how the BATF interprets the law although regardless of interpretation, "shall not be infringed" should still be the standard.
    Formerly Known As RevDerb since 2008 with 9,457 posts.
    VietNam era vet (USN - CTT2, USNR - CTT3), NRA Life Member, NRA Certified RSO, SAF, GOA.
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    http://revderb.blogspot.com John 5:24 <><

  4. #4
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shooting distance from "8 mile"
    Posts
    6,525
    Quote Originally Posted by CircuitRider View Post
    I wrote the NRA a scathing email over the weekend regarding their recommendation to refer it to the BATF but now I see that they may have been right. We'll have to see how the BATF interprets the law although regardless of interpretation, "shall not be infringed" should still be the standard.
    Don't feel too bad...
    "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    They're further confusing the issue and supporting gun control.
    "Sec. 2. All persons who are commonly known as “Greasers” or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood, ... who go armed and are not known to be peaceable and quiet persons, and who can give no good account of themselves, may be disarmed by any lawful officer, and punished..." - Disarming of "Greasers", An Act to punish Vagrants, Vagabonds, and Dangerous and Suspicious Persons” California, passed April 30, 1855.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter