What is an "Arsenal"

Dalko43

Explorer
I don't want bump stocks banned. I think they are gimmicky, and not very accurate usually, but that's no reason for banning. People come up with legal ideas that get close to illegal without being illegal. If you let them take the bump stocks it'll be something else after that. I love what these companies are doing with "firearms" that shoot 12 gauge these days. Perfectly legal from some inventive people.
I agree, if bump stocks get banned it will be just one more little bite out of the constitution and the antis won't stop there, each little success on their part gets them closer towards the ultimate goal of totally banning all firearms, regardless of the facts about gun usage and the facts that the super majority of gun owners are not to blame for the boogey man fears that rule the antis lives
Okay, but even as die-hard 2nd Amendment supporters (which is a group I consider myself part of) we should acknowledge that the bumpstock is a "gimmicky" way of sidestepping the 1986 NFA regulation pertaining to full auto firearms. At the very least, there should be serious consideration to making a bumpstock a regulated item (similar to a pre-1986 machine gun).

I don't want to tell other people what they can and can't use, but if we leave this issue unaddressed, anti-gun rights advocates will use this issue to enact more burdensome and unnecessary regulations once they get a favorable politician in the Whitehouse. We've already had to hold off on the suppressor deregulation legislation because politicians and media personalities were demonizing those items in the wake of this most recent incident. If I have to pick and choose which item I prioritize for legislative action, it would definitely be suppressors, not bumpstocks.
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
The problem is this stuff is all emotion and no facts. Its not like the guy was shooting sub sonic and suppressed to fool people of his location but facts don't seem to matter. Same with bump stocks, they don't make weapons automatic. I think you give up something you'll end up giving up everything. At the same time I'm not ignorant to the hurt this tragedy has caused. But tragedy causes overreaction too often. Look at the patriot act.
 

Modeler

W1DCS
You sure do end up with kneejerk overreactions. Case in point:

October 11, 2017

Today, with no warning, the Massachusetts House of Representatives added an emergency amendment to their budget based on legislation filed by Representative David Linsky (D) Natick. They voted it through with only three no votes.

The language of the amendment was in three parts. The first outlines a ban on components that can be added to a firearm, rifle, or shotgun that could increase the rate of fire, “Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.”

The second part states that the bill, “shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”

The third part states, “The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.”

The budget, including this amendment, will be voted on by the Massachusetts State Senate tomorrow.

TAKE ACTION

Please call your State Senator ASAP at the MA State House, 617-722-2000 and urge them to oppose this language in entirety.

Notes:

The first part is loosely worded and doesn’t provide definition as to what rate of fire is. As written it will include any gun including a bolt-action rifle. In other words, if a bolt-action rifle is modified so that the bolt can operate with more ease, or less friction, it could be considered a felony.

The third part is extremely egregious, as it will give the state regulatory authority over the maintenance and enhancement of all firearms. Can you imagine what our Attorney General will do with this?
Our RINO governor has already said he'll be signing it. Can't wait to move out of this CommieWealth.
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
Are they going to buy back existing firearms that are now supposedly illegal? I think they are setting themselves up for a huge legal battle that they will lose.
 

Modeler

W1DCS
This is in MA, the courts are in their pockets and beds. The AG is Maura Healey, her wife is a State Judge.

Looks like the bill the Senate passed is much more specific than the crap the house passed. I haven't yet seen transcripts though.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Same with bump stocks, they don't make weapons automatic.
You're arguing semantics. Legally speaking, a semi-auto rifle with a bumpstock isn't considered an automatic weapon (which is why the device was approved by the ATF under Obama). However, a bumpstock does, in essence, allow a semi-auto rifle to replicate full auto capabilities. There is a valid argument to be made that this device violates the spirit of the 1986 NFA legislation, even if it is technically in compliance. We, by we I mean gun owners, should be willing to consider at least a regulation or permitting system similar to what pre-1986 machine guns require.

If we don't take ownership on this issue, I guarantee that the anti's will use this incident and device as figurative ammo to attack our existing rights and to block deregulation of common sense items (like suppressors).
 

doug720

Expedition Leader
IMHO, once a compromise is reached on banning any legal type of weapon or device, the snow ball begins to roll down the slippery slope. There are people and groups that want a full ban on all private gun ownership. Many are well funded and organized, and once they win...they will just keep taking bite, after bite , after bite!

You see the same with other situations, ie., land use. Parties make a deal to only close 10% of an area. *** soon as the ink is dry, the same group, or another similar one, starts over again and asks for even more, and so on. It never stops once the ball is rolling.

There is no good answer, but banning guns will not stop bad people from doing bad things. They will use a gun - legal or illegal, if no gun, a bomb, or ??? If someone wants to kill, they will find a way.
 

NevadaLover

Forking Icehole
You're arguing semantics. Legally speaking, a semi-auto rifle with a bumpstock isn't considered an automatic weapon (which is why the device was approved by the ATF under Obama). However, a bumpstock does, in essence, allow a semi-auto rifle to replicate full auto capabilities. There is a valid argument to be made that this device violates the spirit of the 1986 NFA legislation, even if it is technically in compliance. We, by we I mean gun owners, should be willing to consider at least a regulation or permitting system similar to what pre-1986 machine guns require.

If we don't take ownership on this issue, I guarantee that the anti's will use this incident and device as figurative ammo to attack our existing rights and to block deregulation of common sense items (like suppressors).
Obviously you've never shot a full auto firearm and a rifle with a bumpstock, there is no comparison between the 2, the bumpstock is a clumsy add on that under perfect conditions will help you unload faster but it is nothing liike a full auto in any aspect, it's a totally different experience!
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Obviously you've never shot a full auto firearm and a rifle with a bumpstock, there is no comparison between the 2, the bumpstock is a clumsy add on that under perfect conditions will help you unload faster but it is nothing liike a full auto in any aspect, it's a totally different experience!
I've likely fired more full auto weapons than you...in a variety of field conditions. A bump stock isn't 100% the same as full auto, but it does replicate full auto capabilities. And you can certainly fire a whole lot faster with a bumpstock than you can just by pulling the trigger in semi-auto mode. So don't pretend as if it has no bearing on a weapon's rate of fire.

I really don't give a damn if someone wants a bumpstock. But it does skirt around the intent behind the 1986 NFA legislation. Either us gun owners take ownership of this issue or the next Democratic president is going to use every executive authority assigned to him/her to cut off that device and plenty of others.
 

toylandcruiser

Expedition Leader
I've likely fired more full auto weapons than you...in a variety of field conditions. A bump stock isn't 100% the same as full auto, but it does replicate full auto capabilities. And you can certainly fire a whole lot faster with a bumpstock than you can just by pulling the trigger in semi-auto mode. So don't pretend as if it has no bearing on a weapon's rate of fire.

I really don't give a damn if someone wants a bumpstock. But it does skirt around the intent behind the 1986 NFA legislation. Either us gun owners take ownership of this issue or the next Democratic president is going to use every executive authority assigned to him/her to cut off that device and plenty of others.
Hmmm all I can say is “shall not be infringed”.
 
Top