Is this true? (Bumpstocks)

[Justin]

I was surprised when this ban didn't get more pushback when it was first proposed. After the win a couple years ago, everyone on our side kinda sat back and relaxed. All the while more and more states passed some of the strictest anti-gun laws we've seen. CA, WA and others. Colorado will next year. But the Pro 2A population remains quiet and happy. Prices went down, ammo is plentiful, all is good. But it's not. The anti's are gaining ground just much more quietly now.

Bloomberg has been quietly dumping tremendous amounts of money into readily won state level fights for a few years now.

[roberth]

I don't think so. The CO mag limit law puts a pretty difficult burden of proof on the state to prove your magazines are illegally possessed...you acquired them after the law went into effect. There's really no way to prove that for most magazines assuming the guns they were made for were around prior to the law taking affect.

With this, it's an outright ban. Obviously (or maybe not so obviously), they aren't gonna go door-to-door searching for bump stocks. But the mere fact you have the stock will be illegal. It won't matter when it was made, etc...it's just illegal. Period. That's a pretty easy standard to meet. Bump stocks are illegal to possess. roberth was found in possession of a bump stock. BAM! Pretty easy burden of proof.

Now, having said that, I don't think the ATF is gonna go out on a national scale search looking for bump stocks. But it gives them additional ammo to fire at you in the event you pop up on their radar.

I foresee something like: Mr & Mrs Jones get into a domestic. Cops are called. Mrs Jones says Mr Jones owns a shit-ton of guns. One thing leads to another and Mr Jones is hauled off to jail. Cops ask Mrs Jones if they can look thru Mr Jones' gun stuff, she willingly agrees, and they find banned bump stock.

It's my understanding violating the ban will be a felony. Even if the domestic doesn't stick now you're looking at a federal felony.

Thank you.

[Rucker61]

Bloomberg has been quietly dumping tremendous amounts of money into readily won state level fights for a few years now.

Almost worked in Nevada; failed in Maine.

[Rucker61]

Bailey is 100% on point. Of course many people won't comply (we don't condone any lawbreaking here, of course). Problem is, this is federal criminal law number 10,001 (or probably, 15,001, since 10k is a 1990's estimate). Of those, at least 5-10 felonies can be applied to just about anyone. Now lets add this too, and call it a NFA violation, so that we can threaten 10 years of jail time and a 250,000 fine.

Now, lets say your under investigation for a low level federal crime. I don't have a real suggestion here, so IDK, maybe your ex-wife bonked up some paperwork, but they accuse you. You know you could win at trial, you've got witnesses, evidence, they don't have shit. Push comes to shove, they can file charging documents with 10-15 felonies alleged, you'll never be able to afford counsel, and you are FORCED to accept whatever plea they offer regardless of if your innocent or guilty. Or, your only other door is just to fucking eat a bullet.

Welcome to the federal government.

RIP Adam Swartz and all those like him, for they are many.

I recommend the trash bin for any bump stocks. They are what, $70? They also don't really serve the purpose the 2A is intended for, they'd be garbage in a practical application.

What would happen if they found a bunch of rubber bads wrapped around an AR-15?

[BushMasterBoy]

The forum is a trick to get us on a .gov list of potential adversaries.

[MattR]

Reading the rule it said there was almost 2:1 in support of the ban VS against it. It goes to show 1 of 2 things, the gun crowds really aren't any good at staying together and organizing, the left is much better. Or 2, they made up these numbers because they were doing what they wanted anyways. Reading the whole 150something pages really is interesting how they argue the points for and against and cite cases examples. I'm not really sure that a case in the 1880s of a farmer VS the state is revant here but they do. All I really kept thinking while reading it was how much did this cost? How many people and hours were spent on this? Hundreds of thousands at least I'm sure. At this point I'm pretty confident in saying Trump is as if not more corrupt than the rest of them.


I guess my signature is super offensive nowadays too.

[emiller35]

don?t F with my bianary?s or Gisselle?s.

Only a matter of time before they come after these and pistol ?braces?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Justin]

Reading the rule it said there was almost 2:1 in support of the ban VS against it. It goes to show 1 of 2 things, the gun crowds really aren't any good at staying together and organizing, the left is much better. Or 2, they made up these numbers because they were doing what they wanted anyways. Reading the whole 150something pages really is interesting how they argue the points for and against and cite cases examples. I'm not really sure that a case in the 1880s of a farmer VS the state is revant here but they do. All I really kept thinking while reading it was how much did this cost? How many people and hours were spent on this? Hundreds of thousands at least I'm sure. At this point I'm pretty confident in saying Trump is as if not more corrupt than the rest of them.


I guess my signature is super offensive nowadays too.

Most comments were against a ban until there was a concerted effort in lefty media outlets like Salon and Vox and on social media to signal boost the issue to lefties and get them to submit comments.

[Martinjmpr]

Do I need to spell it out?
The risk attached to a $70 piece of fun plastic isn't, by any means, worth the risk. Keeping them will not offer any benefit; not even fun, as you will cease all use of them. So why keep it?

Merica'? Okay, whelp, like Bailey said, you're tying a noose and making it available to any enemy you make in life from now on, however temporarily, including potentially, your spouse, your children. And nope, keeping it isn't going to keep the gov'a'mint in check either. It's a bump stock. They should hand them out like candy along with beta-c mags, everyone would be safer (including the gov't.)

I get the "not one step back" mentality but when it comes to bump stocks the question we need to ask is: Is this the hill we want to die on?

A wise commander chooses when and where to fight. He doesn't fight on ground where he can't win.

When you're fighting a numerically superior enemy you can't allow yourself to get sucked into every little skirmish and bled dry. You have to preserve your fighting capacity for the battles that matter.

Only a matter of time before they come after these and pistol ?braces?

I guess if someone uses a "pistol brace" in a mass shooting they might but even then, how does the "pistol brace" allow a shooter to fire more rounds?

The whole bump stock issue is based on a very specific set of circumstances that are not applicable to most other gun accessories. A bump stock is specifically designed to allow the shooter to fire more rounds like a machine gun. To be honest, I'm a little surprised the BATF didn't clamp down on things like that during the 80's when they first came out, but likely they didn't because nobody used them in a horrific crime.

I actually had one of the crank-type devices back in the mid 1980's, I think it was called the BMF Activator. I only used it once on my Mini-14 as ammo was too expensive to waste like that.

Bottom line, no the sky is not falling.

[Bailey Guns]

I think some of you guys are missing the bigger picture that's not related to guns or bump sticks. This sets a huge precedent for personal property seizure without due process.