Smoking Barrels - LTT's Unnofficial Gun Club!

[Real_PhillBert]

2 minutes ago, RedAV8R said:

Even more reason the law is dumb.

You're not wrong there. The SBR definitions are even more fucked:

 

[knightslugger]

16 minutes ago, RedAV8R said:

Even more reason the law is dumb.

All NFA laws are dumb, from '34 - '86. Every single one of them were knee-jerk legislative reactions.

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

All NFA laws are dumb, from '34 - '86. Every single one of them were knee-jerk legislative reactions.

It's all also legislature that US citizens are obligated to not follow.

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, knightslugger said:

Bump stocks.

 

I want to know how many of you ACTUALLY KNOW what they do, how they function, and why this new reclassification to a Machine Gun is such a slippery slope.

Yep, I'm well aware.  In fact, when I bought my CETME rifle this last summer, the guy I bought it from let me try it out at the range first.  I had to stop and double check that it wasn't modified (this was around the time the Lincoln city council introduced a bump stock ban within city limits), because it double fired a couple times on me without even trying to.

 

Better stock up on rubber bands while you can, before BATFE decides to regulate them. 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/when-rubber-bands-become-machine-guns-because-of-bump-stock-ban/

[george357]

3 hours ago, knightslugger said:

Bump stocks.

 

I want to know how many of you ACTUALLY KNOW what they do, how they function, and why this new reclassification to a Machine Gun is such a slippery slope.

Have a friend that has one. Never had a desire for one myself especially since the same effect can be had with the proper use of a rubber-band. But yes this is a very slippery slope and reclassification of things like this are a gross overreach of the governing body.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, george357 said:

rubber-band

you don't even need *that*... it's so ridonkulous. Given the overwhelming information available to them, they STILL go through with it as worded.

 

just so damn crazy. SO CRAZY.

[Snadzies]

I'm sure this will be unpopular with some, but I agree with the ATF's ruling on bump stocks.

 

A bump stock is:

1 -  Designed to allow the firing of multiple rounds without moving your trigger finger.

2 - Attached to the firearm.

 

I think the second point is the most important.

While a belt loop, rubber band ect can achieve a similar result at a bump stock, such things were not specifically designed to achieve multiple firings of a firearm with a single movement of ones trigger finger, nor are they attached to the fire arm.

 

A bumps stock's soul purpose is to achieve automatic fire through external means rather than an internal sear.

[Trik'Stari]

On 12/19/2018 at 12:44 PM, Real_PhillBert said:

You're not wrong there. The SBR definitions are even more fucked:

 

I've never understood the ATF's insane hatred for a handgun with a fore grip.

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, Snadzies said:

I'm sure this will be unpopular with some, but I agree with the ATF's ruling on bump stocks.

 

A bump stock is:

1 -  Designed to allow the firing of multiple rounds without moving your trigger finger.

2 - Attached to the firearm.

 

I think the second point is the most important.

While a belt loop, rubber band ect can achieve a similar result at a bump stock, such things were not specifically designed to achieve multiple firings of a firearm with a single movement of ones trigger finger, nor are they attached to the fire arm.

 

A bumps stock's soul purpose is to achieve automatic fire through external means rather than an internal sear.

The biggest issue for me (and probably others on this thread) isn't even their ban on bump stocks - I don't own one and have zero interest in doing so - it's their reclassifying them as 'machine guns', which have a very distinct definition.  Machine guns are classified as any device which fires multiple projectiles through a single pull of the trigger, and while a bump stock may emulate that behavior, it still requires multiple trigger pulls to do so.  Your finger may not need to move, but the trigger itself is still being pulled repeatedly.

 

They're basically violating the letter of the law to reclassify a device under a heading that it has zero business being classified under, just to achieve their agenda.  That is the slippery slope that @knightslugger was talking about earlier in the thread.  They could have done a bump stock ban without the reclassification, and it may have just been largely ignored by most people.  I probably would have grumbled under my breath about more government overreach, but just shook my head and continued on my way.  However, by completely ignoring the legal definition of a machine gun to achieve their end, they've basically opened the door for them to reclassify other guns without Congressional oversight.

 

Ironically, bump stocks are even more difficult to aim and control than machine guns are, which makes them completely impractical for anyone wishing to use them to cause mass murder.  They're basically nothing more than a hobby device, meant for fun at the range (especially with actual machines guns being so restricted and controlled).  That the bozo in Vegas used them, is just a single example that has never been replicated anywhere else.  There's literally zero reason to ban them for "public protection", as the public had no need to be protected from them.

 

[RedAV8R]

6 hours ago, Snadzies said:

I'm sure this will be unpopular with some, but I agree with the ATF's ruling on bump stocks.

 

A bump stock is:

1 -  Designed to allow the firing of multiple rounds without moving your trigger finger.

2 - Attached to the firearm.

 

I think the second point is the most important.

While a belt loop, rubber band ect can achieve a similar result at a bump stock, such things were not specifically designed to achieve multiple firings of a firearm with a single movement of ones trigger finger, nor are they attached to the fire arm.

 

A bumps stock's soul purpose is to achieve automatic fire through external means rather than an internal sear.

And nobody gave 2c about them until ONE person decided to use it for evil purposes. No sorry. That's not how it works.

 

You keep mentioning a persons  trigger finger... that doesn't matter. That's not the law.

 

The fact that the ATF is rewriting the law can not happen. If they want this done. Then do it the right way with legislation.

 

The fact that a legal object is suddenly illegal and force people to throw away hundreds of dollars is ex post facto. The only way I'd remotely support this action would be exempting them from the '86 ban and making them fully transferable.

[knightslugger]

26 minutes ago, RedAV8R said:

And nobody gave 2c about them until ONE person decided to use it for evil purposes. No sorry. That's not how it works.

 

You keep mentioning a persons  trigger finger... that doesn't matter. That's not the law.

 

The fact that the ATF is rewriting the law can not happen. If they want this done. Then do it the right way with legislation.

 

The fact that a legal object is suddenly illegal and force people to throw away hundreds of dollars is ex post facto. The only way I'd remotely support this action would be exempting them from the '86 ban and making them fully transferable.

But to do so would mean opening the NFRTR, which means the federal government would be violating the law they enacted because everyone's FAVORITE amendment to the '86 ban states that possession of a machinegun that is not found in the registry prior to a certain date in 1986 is a felony. considering you would own and possess an unregistered machinegun that you want placed in the NFRTR means you are in violation of the Hughes Amendment.

 

Bump stocks were not grandfathered for this exact reason.

 

If anyone wants a solid argument for the slippery slope of unintended legislative consequences that is gun bans... they need look no further than the Hughes Amendment and this bump stock ban/reclassification.

[RedAV8R]

15 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

But to do so would mean opening the NFRTR, which means the federal government would be violating the law they enacted because everyone's FAVORITE amendment to the '86 ban states that possession of a machinegun that is not found in the registry prior to a certain date in 1986 is a felony. considering you would own and possess an unregistered machinegun that you want placed in the NFRTR means you are in violation of the Hughes Amendment.

 

Bump stocks were not grandfathered for this exact reason.

 

If anyone wants a solid argument for the slippery slope of unintended legislative consequences that is gun bans... they need look no further than the Hughes Amendment and this bump stock ban/reclassification.

I know why they weren't grandfathered, that's exactly what i'm saying. Because they can't, or rather won't because to exempt the stocks would again be rewriting law but way more obvious than what they are already doing. The federal government is already violating their own law by attempting to classify them as machineguns, so what is some more violation.

 

And yes, the slope that if this is allowed will set things back and likely never go back until the revolution.

 

Take guns away, or magazines, or whatever and then just the most recent ruling, which I called when it happened. We want the police to protect us, but they have to duty to protect people. Even when forced to be disarmed.

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, Snadzies said:

I agree with the ATF's ruling on bump stocks.

Then you might as well turn all your semi auto guns into the cops now. That's the next logical step when the common denominator of the gun grabbers figure out banning bump stocks doesn't work.

7 hours ago, Snadzies said:

A bumps stock's soul purpose is to achieve automatic fire through external means rather than an internal sear.

No, a bump stock's purpose is to simulate automatic fire by making a semi automatic rifle a slam fire rifle.

[straight_stewie]

14 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

If anyone wants a solid argument for the slippery slope of unintended legislative consequences that is gun bans... they need look no further than the Hughes Amendment and this bump stock ban/reclassification. 

On 12/19/2018 at 10:35 AM, Real_PhillBert said:

 

Quote

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: 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.

I can see how an undereducated individual could believe how bump stocks would be in the gray area of the current definition. To the layman, a bumpstock is this magical thing that, once attached to your firearm, automatically allows you to pull the trigger repeatedly and very quickly. And if one believes that, the logic that "a machine that helps you pull the trigger very quickly is nearly equivalent to a machine that pulls the trigger repeatedly for you" isn't a very far jump to make.

Never mind the fact that, even with practiced individuals, bump stocks are often finicky and usually not any faster than someone with just a little practice can fire without any aid.

 

On 12/19/2018 at 10:35 AM, Real_PhillBert said:

I'm comfortable with the current legal definition of a machine gun, as defined by the NFA and GCA, and dont believe it needs to be redefined.  

I'm not. I believe it should be redefined, as I believe the second amendment should be redefined (or rather, that they should have been defined better in the first place). I think they leave too many loopholes. In this case, the text "can be readily restored to shoot" can easily be construed to include any semi automatic firearm, so long as the people doing the construing can find an "industry expert" engineer that is willing to claim that he can devise a part or parts that can be easily made which would convert the firearm into an automatic firearm.



 

 

[TempestCatto]

All I want in life is a full auto 50 BMG. Is that too much to ask?

 

I kid.

 

But banning bump stocks will only create more criminals, because no one will turn them in (I wont) and now the govt. won't know what the hell to do. Swat their houses and arrest them? How are they even gonna know who owns them? They haven't actually done anything wrong. They own a thing they don't even use much, and when they do it's only at the range. Regardless, you can bump fire any gun if you know what you're doing (i don't, but i know people who do). 'Murica is where all the pretty guns live. Pretty guns need to accessorize else they'll feel self conscious. 

 

Ban more than a certain number of rounds per mag/ban "high" capacity mags? Nah. Same deal as I just said. No one who owns a 100rd drum mag is planning anything malicious. They just have a lot of money and wanna burn it all at the range. Which is fine, cause it's cool and fun. Shooting is fun, that's why it rhymes with gun. Gun is fum.

[RedAV8R]

5 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I'm not. I believe it should be redefined, as I believe the second amendment should be redefined (or rather, that they should have been defined better in the first place). I think they leave too many loopholes. In this case, the text "can be readily restored to shoot" can easily be construed to include any semi automatic firearm, so long as the people doing the construing can find an "industry expert" engineer that is willing to claim that he can devise a part or parts that can be easily made which would convert the firearm into an automatic firearm.

Exactly, any arm the government has, the people should have easy access too. The need for designers to go out of their way to design a firearm so that it can't be modified for automatic fire is a sham.

[Jito463]

53 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I believe the second amendment should be redefined (or rather, that they should have been defined better in the first place)

The only thing we need to know about the 2nd amendment, is SNBI.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

The only thing we need to know about the 2nd amendment is SNBI.

What we need to know is that a man asked the founding fathers about owning some heavy duty cannons for his tradeships. The answer was effectively "yes dipshit, don't ask again."

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

No, a bump stock's purpose is to simulate automatic fire by making a semi automatic rifle a slam fire rifle.

no. jesus no. not even remotely close. Dumbing it down slightly, a slamfire operates from an open bolt ie like a Mac 11. A machined nub on the bolt face acts as a firing pin or striker. a bump stock does NOT make the firearm operate as a slam fire.

[Drak3]

Just now, knightslugger said:

no. jesus no. not even remotely close.

Every bump stock I have ever seen has just been a stock and trigger assembly that allows the rifle to slide back and forth, and required user interaction (sliding the rifle) to achieve simulated auto. The entire concept isn't functionally that different from a slam fire shotgun like the Ithica 37 DS.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

not even remotely close.

Your post inspired me to search for "slam fire rifle", and what I found was illuminating (and occasionally hilarious).

Quote

A slamfire is a premature, usually unintended discharge of a firearm that occurs as a cartridge is being loaded into the chamber. Slamfires are most common in military firearms that have a free-floating firing pin, as opposed to a spring-loaded one.

The funniest one I read:

Quote

As far as "slam" fire, questionable. I know of a cheap Henry .22 Survival rifle that will fire when the trigger is pulled, and fires again when the trigger is released, causing the owner to want to "slam" it on the ground.

 

[knightslugger]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Every bump stock I have ever seen has just been a stock and trigger assembly that allows the rifle to slide back and forth, and required user interaction (sliding the rifle) to achieve simulated auto. The entire concept isn't functionally that different from a slam fire shotgun like the Ithica 37 DS.

except all slam fire operated firearms do so from an open bolt. None of the bump stocks i've seen come with a trigger assembly. the function of the trigger remains as manufactured. the state of the bolt remains unchanged (closed). There is no mechanical interaction between the stock and trigger. Tim over at Military Arms Channel has demonstrated this COUNTLESS times. Hell i've done it myself. no belt loop, no rubber bands, nothing but me and the factory rifle.

[Drak3]

Just now, knightslugger said:

except all slam fire operated firearms do so from an open bolt. 

The Ithica 37 DS Police Special fires from closed bolt. That particular model is a slam fire shotgun. Hold the trigger down, and the hammer is released every time the action slams close.

 

The main differences between that and a bump stock rifle are that the action is autoloading, and the Ithica design is internal.

[knightslugger]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The Ithica 37 DS Police Special fires from closed bolt. That particular model is a slam fire shotgun. Hold the trigger down, and the hammer is released every time the action slams close.

 

The main differences between that and a bump stock rifle are that the action is autoloading, and the Ithica design is internal.

the 37 uses a single function of the trigger. A bump stock does not. There is no mechanical linkage between it and the trigger.

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

The only thing we need to know about the 2nd amendment, is SNBI. 

I'd agree if we hadn't been arguing about the definition of "militia" for 230 years.