Bump stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
jhs914 said:
Didn't you hear that the Supreme Court ruled this week that the ATF classification of bump stocks was illegal?
apnews.com

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight

A Texas gun shop owner challenged the ban, arguing the Justice Department wrongly classified the accessories as illegal machine guns.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
Oh yes I do, but I also remember when they told everyone who had one was in conflict and had to give them up, or register them. Next time, they might not give the option to give them up, and force registration.

I would be careful to whom you let know you have one, even if they are "legal", as it seems that word is used loosely these days.

I do not like these games, and the meaning behind them, be careful is all.
 
burbguy82 said:
Oh yes I do, but I also remember when they told everyone who had one was in conflict and had to give them up, or register them. Next time, they might not give the option to give them up, and force registration.

I would be careful to whom you let know you have one, even if they are "legal", as it seems that word is used loosely these days.

I do not like these games, and the meaning behind them, be careful is all.
Click to expand...
I don't have one and don't want one, but ignoring a Supreme Court decision would be quite a stretch.
 
The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???
 
Last edited:
burbguy82 said:
Oh yes I do, but I also remember when they told everyone who had one was in conflict and had to give them up, or register them. Next time, they might not give the option to give them up, and force registration.

I would be careful to whom you let know you have one, even if they are "legal", as it seems that word is used loosely these days.

I do not like these games, and the meaning behind them, be careful is all.
Click to expand...
How many of the ones that people turned in do you expect to come back to the original owner? They said, IIRC, that something north of 5K of them were turned in nationwide.
 
dnewton3 said:
The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???
Click to expand...
Have a BIL that is a Cali trooper, he can own things the "serfs" can't own. Why would that be when you could have active duty Military Officers, with TS clearances, that can't own the things he can own. The kicker is that he can sell X number of them a year, make good money on them too as they are in high demand.
 
oil pan 4 said:
Lol. The margin of error in the guestimation as to how many where made is way more than 5,000.
Click to expand...
Yeah, concur, but they said 5K of them were turned in when the "ban" went into place...just pontificating on how many of those will now be returned.
 
thastinger said:
How many of the ones that people turned in do you expect to come back to the original owner?
Click to expand...
0.01%, being as the "turn-in or destroy" thing was in effect. If you turned it in, then they were "discarded" in some way, or so they say. I predict another shooting, using one of the stupid contraptions, so they can blame the Supreme Court, and weaponize the move, as per usual. If one were to go to the ATF and ask for their item back, especially after they probably turned it in "anonymously", they are just asking for a knock on the door.
thastinger said:
They said, IIRC, that something north of 5K of them were turned in nationwide.
Click to expand...
No clue here. I would say due to the number of sheep in lion clothing we have in this country, it could be accurate.

Best idea or suggestion to all, don't buy one of these contraptions, and instead, buy like priced training ammo, and learn to shoot fast and accurately.
 
dnewton3 said:
The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???
Click to expand...

While I am not a fan of bump stocks myself, this makes great points. This what people should unreformed they jump the gun…….
 
dnewton3 said:
The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???
Click to expand...
California follows your logic and has outlawed most of what you speak of.
I have always been surprised Cali hasn't gone after reloaders though.
 
dnewton3 said:
The upside of the decision is that the administrative entity has been properly limited; the ATF does not have the authority to make such declarations.
The downside is that some day, the Congress may take action; that would be the Constitutional approach.

The misunderstanding of the topic centers around a false belief that bump-stocks enable "machinegun like" rates of fire. That is patently wrong.
The rate of fire (RoF) is governed by the design of the components in combination with the ammunition used. The weight of the bolt, buffer (if present), the recoil spring force, the gas porting (if present), and the pressure of the cartridge all play into the RoF.
Bump-firing is completely possible (and done fairly easily with practice) irrespective if a bump-stock is present or not. (see any YT video on the topic of bump firing) ... Bump-stocks do NOT make a semi-auto into a full-auto. Rather, bump-stocks merely enhance a recoil-driven process where some people lack skill to manipulate the arm without such aid. To be clear, bump-stocks do NOT alter the RoF the arm is capable of. What they do is enhance the ability of the shooter. Those are very distinct and important differences.

So, as an accessory, the bump-stock merely allows the user to more closely approach the full potential of bump-firing; bump stocks do not, in and of themselves, make bump-fire exist in the absence of anything else. Bump-stocks are a tool for those who do not have the skill to bump-fire.

Could they be banned by Congress in the future? Sure. But would that not be a dangerous precedent? After all, don't we have a slew of other accessories that allow the user to enhance the useful nature of the arm?
- Scopes help increase identification of a target at distance. Scopes do not make the rifle shoot further, but they do improve the odds of hitting the target at longer distances.
- Grips help improve the control of the item. Grips allow one to get a more comfortable purchase of the arm, and control it in rapid fire, and reduce flinching, etc.
- Slings can be used as a control aid. Slings, when used properly, are not just for carrying the arm; they can be a tool to steady one's posture, thereby reducing poa (point of aim) variation when trying to acquire a target
- support devices (bi-pods; tri-pods) help steady the point of aim also; these enhance the ability to put the round on target. They don't make the gun more accurate, but they do improve the shooter's ability to maximize the arm's potential.
These are all accessories that improve the shooting condition. They do nothing to alter the maximum potential of the arm. These accessories enhance the skill (or lack thereof) of the shooter.

If bump-stocks as accessories are banned, what's next???
Click to expand...
10/1 / 2017 las vegas what else was banned in almost 7 years?
 
Fitter30 said:
10/1 / 2017 las vegas what else was banned in almost 7 years?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking what actions the ATF has taken as administrative and not authorized by legislation?
Just to name a few ...
- pistol braces
- forced reset triggers
- 80% lowers
- 5320.20 transport forms
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
New HK MP5 .22 LR Range Toy
Replies
6
Views
2K
Paco Pena
billt460
Stuck Choke Tube
Replies
5
Views
346
JohnnyG
vavavroom
Post your fossils here
Replies
10
Views
1K
vavavroom
kschauweker
Homebuilt Lambo
Replies
8
Views
946
Revving2Redline
buck91
Ford F150 transfer case
Replies
1
Views
1K
wlk
Back
Top