The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Berzerker]

When asked whether his law threatened various constitutional limits on government power, he responded:

"Ask the families of the people who were murdered in Pittsburgh if they thought it would be too far to make sure that that murderer didn't get his hands on a dangerous weapon."

https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/04/ny-lawmaker-want-a-gun-give-us-your-soci

Typical demagogue... How can you dare oppose my PATRIOT ACT?

Clearly the goal of such a law is to weed out the psychos but the effect will be to deter people in general. If you want a gun - in this case apparently long or shot guns - you will need to let Uncle Sam read your rants on the internet.

While I'm sympathetic I dont want our rights depending on how a bureaucrat interprets our levels of hate nor do I want the state finding out about my deviancy just so I can own a gun. Interesting 1st Amendment implications...

 

[Lexicus]

I fail to see how deterring people in general from purchasing guns is a bad thing.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Me neither. And although I do see issues with the general breach of privacy involved here from my perspective it's not so much the government being oppressive as it is the government going through contortions trying to eek out at least a little big of sensible gun control in a hostile environment.

 

[tetley]

Thank you for raising this issue. This bill is complete government overreach. Americans should not have to consent to have the government review our social media accounts for any reason.

Plus there's the law of unintended consequences: you would be having law enforcement reviewing my social media. I have posted plenty about my opinions on law enforcement, and they are not high. And they are the ones who give the go-ahead. What absolute crap. Pure unadulterated police state.

 

[cardgame]

I don't see that as being enforceable. I'll just give them a throwaway account or say that I don't have one.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: As a reminder, this is a quarantine thread. No other threads or discussion about firearms or gun control are permitted outside this thread.

 

[Berzerker]

I fail to see how deterring people in general from purchasing guns is a bad thing.

are there any other rights you want us being deterred from using?

we wont have many once everyone gets to deter rights they dont like

 

[JollyRoger]

We need to expand gun rights. Ex-felons don't have their 3rd Amendment Rights violated.

 

[Commodore]

I fail to see how deterring people in general from purchasing guns is a bad thing.

That's because you hate the Constitution and don't believe in civil rights.

Moderator Action: You may not believe in following the site rules, but we do. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Anyway, the federal government officially made it illegal to own a bump stock today, claiming it fits the federal definition of a "machine gun". Here's the problem I have with that reasoning: a bump stock does not fit the definition of a machine gun. For reference, here is the current definition of a machine gun according to US federal law:

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Bolding by me, as that is the key part. A bump stock does not allow more than one shot to be fired by a single action of the trigger. The trigger still gets pulled for each individual shot that is fired. All the bump stock does is allow a person to fire a semi-automatic weapon at a rate that is comparable to a fully automatic weapon. It does not, however, make the semi-automatic weapon function as a fully-automatic weapon.

The GOA has already filed a legal challenge to this ban and if the federal government actually cares about holding to its own definitions and laws, they will have to reverse this ban since the cited reason for the ban does not coincide with current federal law.

Also for reference, here is a video that gives an overview of how bump stocks work for those who may be confused on the matter (explanation of the bump stock begins around 2:42):

 

[Estebonrober]

That's because you hate the Constitution and don't believe in civil rights.

Anyway, the federal government officially made it illegal to own a bump stock today, claiming it fits the federal definition of a "machine gun". Here's the problem I have with that reasoning: a bump stock does not fit the definition of a machine gun. For reference, here is the current definition of a machine gun according to US federal law:



Bolding by me, as that is the key part. A bump stock does not allow more than one shot to be fired by a single action of the trigger. The trigger still gets pulled for each individual shot that is fired. All the bump stock does is allow a person to fire a semi-automatic weapon at a rate that is comparable to a fully automatic weapon. It does not, however, make the semi-automatic weapon function as a fully-automatic weapon.

The GOA has already filed a legal challenge to this ban and if the federal government actually cares about holding to its own definitions and laws, they will have to reverse this ban since the cited reason for the ban does not coincide with current federal law.

Also for reference, here is a video that gives an overview of how bump stocks work for those who may be confused on the matter (explanation of the bump stock begins around 2:42):

If you state that the bump stock is an extension of the trigger you've gotten around that legalism. Also since you only actually squeeze the trigger once you could argue this is a single depression of the trigger.

Nobody rational supports these things they are only good for blowing a ton of money on a firing range and shooting bunch of people randomly in crowds.

This is the exact kind of thing gun control advocates point at and say gun rights advocates aren't rational actors.

 

[cardgame]

Bump stocks are pretty obviously a loophole

 

[Commodore]

If you state that the bump stock is an extension of the trigger you've gotten around that legalism.

Except it's not an extension of the trigger. It's the stock of the rifle.

Also since you only actually squeeze the trigger once you could argue this is a single depression of the trigger.

No. You still squeeze the trigger for each shot. Plus, the technique of bump firing rifles has existed before actual bump stocks existed and the technique of bump firing itself is still perfectly legal. All the bump stock does is make the technique just a little bit easier to achieve (but not by much as even the guy in the video I posted still had some trouble getting it to work). So how does it make sense for the government to say bump firing is legal but bump stocks aren't? Hint: it doesn't.

Nobody rational supports these things they are only good for blowing a ton of money on a firing range and shooting bunch of people randomly in crowds.

This is the exact kind of thing gun control advocates point at and say gun rights advocates aren't rational actors.

No. This is a common argument the anti-gun crowd tries to use in an attempt to shame gun rights advocates into agreeing with them. Honestly though, most people in the gun community don't like bump stocks (myself included), but still fight against banning them because of the larger implications. Redefining bump stocks as machine guns opens the door to redefine pretty much anything that might increase the rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon as a machine gun. This would include everything from triggers, bolt carrier groups, optics, and even lubricants that are essential to the basic maintenance of the weapon. All the government would have to do is make the case that the component in question somehow serves to increase the rate of fire of the firearm. They could, in theory, use this bump stock ban as a precedent to effectively ban guns without actually banning guns.

Bump stocks are pretty obviously a loophole

No, it's not a loophole. Calling it a loophole would imply that bump stocks allow the creation of automatic weapons that would otherwise be banned, which they do not do. All they do is allow a semi-auto rifle to be fired at a rate that is comparable to an automatic weapon. However, the action is still semi-automatic and still meets the government's requirement of "one shot per trigger squeeze." So if the government wants to ban bump stocks, they are going to have to come up with a better reason than "they are machine guns."

 

[Berzerker]

he had trouble because he never fired one

the reason machine guns were banned is the rate of fire, bump stocks have a comparable rate of fire

 

[Commodore]

the reason machine guns were banned is the rate of fire

No, they weren't. If rate of fire was the issue, then the current definition according to US federal law would mention rate of fire. It does not. If I had a gun that only fired one round a minute but only required one squeeze of the trigger to fire multiple rounds, that would still be a machine gun according to US federal law.

Also, if rate of fire were the issue, then bump stocks would have been banned the first time the ATF looked at them in 2010.

bump stocks have a comparable rate of fire

Your point? There are speed shooters out there that can achieve machine gun-like rates of fire with semi-auto firearms with just their finger and no assistance from a bump stock or any other device. Should those people be classified as machine guns by the ATF and prohibited from owning firearms?

 

[cardgame]

No, they weren't. If rate of fire was the issue, then the current definition according to US federal law would mention rate of fire.

You are being purposely obtuse.

 

[Commodore]

You are being purposely obtuse.

No I'm not. The issue with automatic weapons was not with rate of fire, but rather with ease of fire. That's why the law focuses on the type of action the firearms uses, not how fast it can spit rounds down range.

 

[cardgame]

And bump stocks aren't easier in any way?

 

[Commodore]

And bump stocks aren't easier in any way?

Of course they are. However, the wording of the law cited to justify the ban clearly defines a machine gun as a firearm or modification to a firearm that allows more than one shot to be fired with a single squeeze of the trigger. A bump stock does not do that, thus it is not a machine gun and the ban, as it is currently worded, has no legal justification.

 

[cardgame]

if you have a mechanism engage the trigger for you

is that not a machine? making it a machine gun?

 

[Commodore]

if you have a mechanism engage the trigger for you

It's not engaging the trigger for you though. At best (or worst depending on your perspective), it is providing assistance to increase rate of fire just like other currently legal modifications, like binary triggers, do.

It also does not engage the trigger at all. All it does is change the way in which you, the shooter, engage the trigger in a way that allows you to take advantage of the weapon's recoil to achieve higher rates of fire.

EDIT: And again, this is a technique that has existed long before the invention of bump stocks. All the bump stocks do is make the technique of bump firing easier to execute.

EDIT2: And while we are on the subject, I think it is both sad and funny at the same time that the government chose to ban bump stocks with the machine gun reasoning while leaving binary triggers alone. Binary triggers definitely come closer to the federal definition of a machine gun than bump stocks do since they, technically, fire two rounds per trigger squeeze instead of one. With a binary trigger, one round is fired when you squeeze the trigger and another is fired when you release it.