… there isn’t a bump-fire stock to be found. There probably weren’t all that many out there before the prospect of a ban came up. How many will there be after? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
And if Feinstein gets her way, as long as it’s illegal already, might as well put the spring in it. You won’t do more time for the spring, and it makes the device a lot easier use and more effective.
I’ll reiterate my prediction, because it’s what happened after Sandy Hook; they will be offered a deal; bump stock ban to get our two bills through. They will not take it. They won’t be able to help themselves. At the end of the day, they will get nothing, and then wonder why.
13 thoughts on “Now That There’s Talk of a Ban …”
Your prediction is correct. But I donâ€™t think we will get to even deploy the two bill strategy since I also predict they canâ€™t even help themselves but to build in additional gotchas and are locked and loaded with more amendments before we even think about how to put our bills/amendments through.
My big fear is that ATF just reclassifies bump stocks, in which case we just lose and end up with no bargaining chip.
I wouldn’t bet on it. They’ll pass the ban alone and consider national reciprocity and the HPA at the appropriate, future time. Never underestimate the republican capacity for surrender.
They do that, they’ll lose their majority.
Which means that McConnell, Ryan and the other Vichy Republicans get to keep their leadership roles without being responsible for anything. Win win.
yep, and that’s why I think that the NRA is laying low. Pelosi and the Dems cannot help themselves.
NRA is now calling on BATFE to “immediately review” whether bumpstocks should be subject to additional regulation.
Sigh. So instead of using it as a bargaining chip, let’s just piss it away!
FYI, it’s not a “bump stock” ban; it’s a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, and/or possession of “any part, combination of parts…(etc.)” that is “designed or functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle”.
This could be read to include bolt-carrier groups (BCGs) made using lighter materials or a “skeletonized” design, or a stiffer buffer spring, since either/both help the action cycle faster and bring the gun back into battery faster, and the action cycling is what determines your rate of fire.
It could (conceivably) also be interpreted to ban 30+ round magazines, since changing mags less often arguably means shooting more rounds per minute.
Historically, it hasn’t been wise to trust the BATFE to do the right thing when it comes to “determinations”.
That’s Feinstein’s bill, which has to be stopped at all costs. I’m wondering (worried) that NRA is calling for reclassification because DiFis bill might have a chance.
Could be NRA’s strategy is reclassification to stave off bad legislation until the heat is off, then go back later and cement the reclassification with law in exchange for one or both of our bills.
Keep in mind that if the ATF does reclassify, it’s on dubious legal grounds. Someone will probably challenge it. There was a reason bump stocks were an illegal conversion if it had a spring, but legal if it didn’t. The former is supported by the language in the law, and the latter is not.
Just ordered a drop-in trigger I had been thinking about, just in case the Feinstein language gets traction and it becomes an overly broad interpretation. That probably won’t fly, but it was enough incentive to get me the pull the trigger on the trigger.
They always wonder why. “Gun control” is not a rational plan, it’s a hateful attitude.
As Gorilla Pundit over at Ace of Spades HQ explained it:
“Do you know what stupid is? Stupid is continually telling a large portion of the population that they’re the cause of all social problems, you hate them, they’re Literally Hitler and you wish them dead. And then telling them oh by the way, please give up your guns.”
“I’ll take ‘Bad Ideas’ for $600, Alex.”
Comments are closed.