Posted on 03/23/2018 4:29:05 PM PDT by Simon Green
When you can bring Jerry Miculek to a gunfight I'll concede to your ridiculous assertion.
There is no piece of existing federal law, to my knowledge, which prohibits devices which increase the rate of fire in legal SEMI-automatic firearms. That sort of catch-all language is part of the current gun control proposals, which just goes to prove that it's not yet on the books. Sessions is putting the cart before the horse with his announcement, probably with the expectations that some sort of gun control law will eventually be passed and close the circle.
As for why Sessions and Trump believe that political grandstanding on this topic is beneficial, it's a mystery to me. I think all it will do is lose Trump some supporters (not because of the gun issue specifically, but because they know mendacious political bullshit when they see it) and make the administration look amateurish and reactive.
That’s funny. The notice of proposed rule making actually suggests that bump stock users upset with having to destroy their previously lawfully owned property are free to simulate them with rubber bands or belt loops.
You don’t have the first clue how bump stocks or bump firing works.
People like you will cost us our 2A rights and I’m getting sick of hearing this crap spew from the mouths of those who ought to know better.
I’m getting tired of fighting for people who don’t care.
The whole problem boils down to the fact the people that should have been wearing rubbers were not so we ended up with a bunch of half wits who got a job with the guberment.
You do know that you don’t need a bump stock to bump fire, right?
You do also know that a bump stock does not constitute a machine gun by current statutory definition right? Or do you have no clue how they work?
I get tired of conservatives ranting about legislation by executive fiat when it’s a Dem, but are ok with pubs doing it.
No it doesn’t.
The law defines a machine gun as a firearm that can fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
You know what a bump stock doesn’t do? It doesn’t make a firearm fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull. Bump stock equipped guns fire one shot per trigger pull. That is the definition of semi auto in the law.
“Bump stocks DO change the mechanics of firing the rifle in that you no longer “pull” the trigger repeatedly to fire the weapon: that’s the point of the thing.”
Please find a video that shows how bump stocks work before you utter more falsehoods like this.
Please learn what “bump firing” IS before you take it upon yourself to correct others much less accuse them of falsehood.
The whole point of bump fire is to use the recoil of the weapon to bounce the trigger against your finger rather than deliberately squeezing it for each round.
The first part of my comment was a quote from another poster. Those are not my words. You and I are in agreement.
Actually nevermind. We are not in agreement. I know what bump firing is, having done it a couple of times.
Bump stocks cannot be read as being machine guns under federal law. Anyone with an eighth grade education can read well enough to see that.
How coincidental!
I'm tired of people who believe caring takes the place of cogent thinking!
And the falsehood charge stands. I do not retract it, and I defy you and everyone else on God’s earth to show me in the law how a bump stock is a machine gun.
If anyone wants to try it out, cite the 34 NFA and/or 68 GCA and then explain to me how a firearm that requires one function of the trigger for every shot is now somehow a machine gun.
And anyone who hangs their hat on distinctions without difference and gratuitous assertions is going to be very disappointed.
Do we have laws in this country or not? Do laws matter or do they not? Are we ok with the executive branch making law without congress as long as it’s a republican doing it?
The distinctions here have huge differences in them with major ramifications long term. You’d better take those blinders off.
I already did. Bump stocks change the method of operation from deliberately squeezing the trigger to using the recoil of the weapon to bounce the entire weapon including the trigger off the trigger finger.
That is the POINT of installing a bump stock.
Also, feel free to cite the law to support your position. Unless you are favoring legislation by executive fiat now, in which case just say that.
Spare me.
“We” are obviously fine with restricting automatic fire on civilian weapons. Blustering over HOW automatic fire is achieved with a civilian weapon is intellectually dishonest,
I don't need to; YOU have to demonstrate the flaw in my description of how bump stocks "work."
And please don't bother with claiming "one bullet per trigger pull." If that were true, no one would bother installing a bump stock.
Sigh.
26 USC 5845b:
“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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
The operative phrase is “single function of the trigger”. Meaning a firearm that fires one shot only per trigger function is not a machine gun.
A bump stock equipped firearm fires one shot per function of the trigger. A bump stock does not pull the trigger for you. Your finger still actuated the trigger one time per shot.
I will ask you again. Do we or do we not have laws? Do laws matter? Do words mean things? Are we ok with legislation by executive fiat as long as a republican does it?
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.