Posted on 10/05/2017 2:50:12 PM PDT by Kaslin
By now, you all know the news, the National Rifle Association is asking for a federal review of bump stocks that use recoil to increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic weapon. It doesn’t convert the firearm into an automatic weapon, however, which I’ve seen some politicians and pundits say over the airwaves. That’s false. Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon had a good description of the bump stock accessory:
You see, bump firing is a shooting technique which enables a shooter to repeatedly engage the trigger of a semi-automatic firearm, utilizing the assistance of the recoiling produced by each gun shot, to fire at a much higher rate than what can be accomplished by squeezing the trigger normally. A bump-fire stock can be used to facilitate this technique. However, what many reporters have missed and many more are likely to miss in the coming days, bump firing can easily be performed on many semi-automatic rifles without any modification or special accessory.
Bump fire stocks don't actually make the gun fully-automatic. Instead, they use recoil to increase how quickly the trigger can be pulled.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 3, 2017
They increase the fire rate well above what normal semi-automatic rifles are capable but not quite to fully-automatic rates.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 3, 2017
This is the first instance that I'm aware of where a bump fire stock has been used in a crime. Very shocking.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 3, 2017
I've fired with a bump fire stock before. They're basically novelty items used for recreational shooting.— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 3, 2017
He also added that it’s mostly used for recreational shooting, and that they’re rarely if ever used in gun crimes save for the tragic shooting in Las Vegas. Still, the fact remains, mass shootings are rare, they don’t constitute the majority of gun crimes, and rifles and shotguns are also rarely used to commit such crimes. Handguns are the biggest offender, though there is zero appetite to ban them and for good reason; it would be political suicide.
Big: "The NRA believes...[bump stocks] should be subject to additional regulations." pic.twitter.com/jbIKJPZnJl— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) October 5, 2017
Here’s what the NRA released earlier today (via Politico):
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and Executive Director Chris Cox added in a joint statement.
The influential gun lobby, which often stifles any legislation that can be interpreted as curbing Second Amendment rights, has suggested to Hill Republicans and Trump administration officials that they would prefer a new rule or regulations from ATF over what they worry will be hastily pieced together legislation on Capitol Hill.
The NRA’s willingness to consider such restrictions is significant. The powerful group has long opposed any changes that restrict gun and ammunition purchases.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that the administration is “open to” reviewing policy on bump stocks.
Yet, this has all been reviewed before. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reviewed bump stocks in 2010, in which they said the accessory developed by Slide Fire “has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed.” The reason this has been underreported possibly: it was green lit under the Obama administration. Also known as the era of good feelings with the news media (via CNS News):
On June 7, 2010 -- about a year and a half into the Barack Obama administration -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued an opinion letter, giving the go-ahead to an after-market accessory that allows the user to “bump fire” a semi-automatic rifle.
[...]
The device replaces the factory stock and grip. The replacement stock moves back and forth with the gun's recoil, allowing it to fire rapidly and continuously as the trigger repeatedly is bumped into the shooter’s finger. A switch allows the user to select semi-automatic fire (one shot for each trigger pull) or the more rapid “bump fire.”
According to the ATF’s June 2010 letter: “The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hands and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”
Also, you can increase the rate of fire on a semiautomatic without a bump stock:
Bumpfire stocks make bump-firing easier, but anyone can bumpfire a semi-auto rifle with a little bit of practice -- Poorly informed tweet pic.twitter.com/NLlIqULkSu— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 3, 2017
In short, there should be no ban or review. The federal government has already done this and approved of the accessory. It was green lit under Obama. It would be just another redundant policy. Also, it gives weight to the overall argument the Left has on firearms, and it will lead to more discussion about other bans. Bans on certain types of ammunition, high-capacity magazines, and maybe even military-looking rifles. It’s not the road Republicans, or any gun rights-supporting American or politicians should go down. There’s literally no retreat. You supported a bump stock ban, then why not a ban on high-capacity magazines? It’s an argument we don’t need to have because we’ve already won it on gun rights. Let’s not cede the high ground.
“...How hard would it be to make a home made bump stock without using a digital printer?”
Very.
The design being looked at by zillions of news customers depends on a set of molded plastic stock parts. The outside one is a sleeve that fits over the internal one, which provides the main structure. When the gun fires, the internal one moves back against spring pressure, traveling inside the sleeve, which is held immobile against the user’s shoulder or leg or something relatively solid.
As this movement occurs, the tab to the left of the trigger - an extension of the external sleeve - is moved forward in relation to the trigger, pushing the user’s finger off the trigger. Thus freed, the rifle mechanism resets.
When the rifle comes to rest, the spring pushes the internal stock forward, moving the entire rifle forward. Since the user’s hand is still in place, when the trigger clears the side tab, it is thrust against the user’s trigger finger again and the rifle (itself cycling much more quickly) fires. Cycle repeats until the rifle runs dry or the user consciously moves their finger well forward.
And cycle duration is much smaller than the interval of time in which the average mortal can deliberately move their finger.
The genius of the bump-fire stock is that the inventor packaged it all neatly and durably, and the shapes of the parts render mastery of the technique much easier than earlier devices.
All of it can be duplicated pretty decently with nothing more than a rubber band, but the technique for using one of those is trickier.
And I just sent in my 5-year renewal. Damn them. If I survive this renewal I will switch to Guns of America.
“In short, there should be no ban or review. The federal government has already done this ... Let’s not cede the high ground.”
Totally agree with everything Kaslin wrote here.
Trouble is, it’s not a case of being stalwart until BATFE concedes the obvious. In that sense, there is no “high ground” here nor anyplace else.
BATFE makes occasional efforts to appear as if it was a conscientious agency providing a true “service” to the gunmaking industry and federally licensed dealers, helping them navigate the tangled undergrowth of rules.
But the truth is, gunmakers and dealers and everyone else involved do what “the agency” says or they will be forced out of business, or even serve prison time. There is no cooperation, no common ground. BATFE has repeatedly said it can never be bound by any previous decision on rules interpretation, and its “customers” are on their own: guilty until proven innocent, intent never a factor. They have entire squadrons of attorneys to whip up any argument needed, to support whichever interpretation they want at any given moment. Appeals are allowed, but in practice appellants never win.
The case of the original FAL models is notorious. These FN-made rifles - collector items all - have changed status from “machine gun” to plain old semi-auto, and back, several times.
Officials are never intellectually honest and they never admit a mistake.
“...75 yards, which is close to the normal engagement ranges for truly effective full auto fire from shoulder mounted weapons. ...”
Huzzah.
Heard many who were there, and some other knowledgeable sources, say 75m is about the max effective range for full-auto fire from a shoulder weapon - any shoulder weapon. Thanks for the confirmation.
DMZFrank is the truest of True Americans. Can’t thank him enough for being there when guys like me were not yet old enough to sign on the dotted line. I did get old enough, I did sign, performed a great many duties, learned a great many truths, and was rewarded. But the highest privilege of all was serving in the same military establishment DMZFrank did.
Thanks. You know what the arguments will be for banning these devices. I think even if they were banned, those who really wanted one would find a way to get one. I don’t understand why anyone would think they are useful, but what do I know.
I’m a life member, but it was a legacy gift.
I sent them some castigating commentary earlier today.
You know those tools would suck up to muzzle loader regulations if someone went off with a few 1858 New Army Remington’s and a bag full of loaded cylinders...
>
>>
the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations
>>
Same ole crap sandwich from the NRA. Just like the RINOS they have been capitulating for the past 30 years to the give-an-inch-take-a-mile leftist. The only reason I remain a member is that it is a requirement at my favorite outdoor gun club. In a way, I feel extorted by the NRA\
>
TY, FRiend. Why I dropped ‘em ages ago. Damn shame too many here can’t noodle past Step 2; and the NRA can’t seem to find the definition of ‘INFRINGEMENT’ (hint, see: REGULATION).
Maybe they should revise their mission statement. With friends like the RNA....
Agreed completely.
On mine it would take 18 hours or more to print a bump stock out and depending on the filament chosen and the density would cost a couple of bucks. So I would be forced to halt my production of personalized dollar store type trinkets all night and into the next day.
We have a long history of feel good type legislation in this country. Congress can claim that they did something. Then the next time someone uses a bump fire technique or device to increase their rate of fire into an innocent crowd congress can say what they did was “illegal” and it shouldn't have happened.
If it wasn’t for the NRA we would not be having this conversation about banning anything. Bump stocks don’t work on single shot firearms. I’ve been a member for forty-five years now and proud of it.
>
If it wasn’t for the NRA we would not be having this conversation about banning anything....I’ve been a member for forty-five years now and proud of it.
>
Yes, we would. We’d still have the (R) tripping over themselves to do the (D) bidding (”We did *SOMETHING* (illegal/unconstitutional)!”) after any/all sicko events like Vegas.
The N(R)A sell-outs made the front page. Must be proud of that 45yrs of support.
Myself, I’ll give my $$ and support to those that actually DEFEND and SUPPORT the plain English of the Constitution, and esp. the 2nd...”shall NOT be infringed.”
>
Bump stocks don’t work on single shot firearms.
>
As its a ‘rapid multiple fire’ accessory\tweak, I guess it WOULDN’T work on single shots.
What *that* has got to do w/ the conversion...
RE Bump Stocks:
Personally, I have no use for them. That being said, however, I am vehemently against ANY infringement on our right to own one if we so choose.
Because one psychotic idiot commits a crime with an object does not mean the rest of us have to pay for his actions - but to a certain political party, it does.
So if the other side wants it gone, then that’s all the more reason I want it to stay, whatever it is. If they’re against it, I’m FOR it and vice versa.
Complete, total, and absolute NON-COMPROMISE with them is the only acceptable answer. They made up the rules, so we should force them to play the game.
Today it’s the bump stock. Tomorrow, it will be pistol grips, muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs, standard cap mags - oh wait, we already HAD that battle in the 90s...
Every time we back up, they move forward and push, push, push.
And the feckless, ball-less RINOs in the GOP will be all-too-willing to roll over and pee all over their own bellies to comply with their Democrat plantation masters.
“..The people on this forum now calling for Government action, quite frankly make me sick....”
You aren’t alone there, Cros.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.