Stop the ATF from re-writing the Law on Bumpstocks/Rate of fire *Link Below

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tkd4life

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 10, 2010
    1,737
    Southern Maryland
    Does anyone have any idea what "other similar devices" even means. Does that include after market triggers, binary triggers, collapsible stocks? I have no idea what those words mean.
     

    DubTap21

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    551
    Silver Spring
    Does anyone have any idea what "other similar devices" even means. Does that include after market triggers, binary triggers, collapsible stocks? I have no idea what those words mean.
    Yes, those. The vagueness is there for a reason.......so they can ban whatever the hell they want to, whenever they want to. This is why we need to fight this fiercely.

    Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    I definitely set aside a good hour the other day to type out my thoughts. I don't care what anyone's politics are, government by fiat is wrong. This proposed rule change is unacceptable, and even worse than I initially understood. I am really appreciative of MAC for doing a special livestream on this. Regulating how fast one can fire a weapon is bad news.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Here's mine, feel free to adopt any part:

    Comment:
    Insofar as these devices have been widely sold and not serial-numbered, it would be difficult to devise a reasonable means of regulation.

    Beyond that, it has been extensively documented that bump-fire can be achieved easily without the use of the device.

    Despite the highly-charged and overly politicized Las Vegas incident, which to date has yet to be fully studied, documented or even examined, these devices are not generally useful, nor in common use. Aside from providing fodder for the various sides in the gun control debates, which puts the Agency in an awkward position regarding "playing politics", there seems little point in pursuing regulation regarding these items. It adds a considerable burden to the Agency with no real-world benefit.
     

    cantstop

    Pentultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2012
    8,161
    MD
    There is still time to post comments. If the ATF classifies bump-stocks as machine guns the precedent to require a Tax Stamp for ALL self loading rifles will be in place.

    Don't let Bloomberg and his minions bully the ATF into this new rule.
     

    hillbilly grandpa

    Active Member
    Jan 26, 2013
    962
    Arnold
    "ATF requests comments on this ANPRM from all interested persons with information about the enumerated questions. ATF specifically requests comments on the questions listed above,..."

    This from the official site. It appears that this is an obvious attempt to limit comments to a constrictive set of marginally relevant questions. Are y'all mostly blowing these questions off and saying what's actually on your mind, or do you recommend other approaches?
     

    StantonCree

    Watch your beer
    Jan 23, 2011
    23,932
    Does anyone have any idea what "other similar devices" even means. Does that include after market triggers, binary triggers, collapsible stocks? I have no idea what those words mean.

    I have a trigger guard that simulates it
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    "ATF requests comments on this ANPRM from all interested persons with information about the enumerated questions. ATF specifically requests comments on the questions listed above,..."

    This from the official site. It appears that this is an obvious attempt to limit comments to a constrictive set of marginally relevant questions. Are y'all mostly blowing these questions off and saying what's actually on your mind, or do you recommend other approaches?

    I guarantee that any responses that don't address the enumerated questions will get round filed. That's the way bureaucracies work, whether its GOV requests for comment (or quote), or corporate Human Resources reviewing job applications. It really cuts down the pile of paper that needs to be reviewed in depth.
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    My Comment:

    I do not believe the regulation or prohibition of bump stocks will have any meaningful benefit. There are many in existence today and are not serialized. There has been no evidence that suggests that prohibiting their use will do anything to increase safety of U.S, Citizens. In the most recent example, use of a bump stock in Los Vegas probably resulted in less deaths than would a better trained individual with a bolt action gun could obtain. For that matter, the individual would have killed more people if he drove a truck through the venue.

    It appears the original BATF "approval" was sound.

    By preventing the "use" or "possession" of a device that improves the rate of fire leads down a slippery slope. It basically opens the door to allow any device attached to a firearm that increase rate of fire to be banned. Every accessory used can fit into that definition. A scope leads to faster target acquisition which allows a faster rate of fire. Lubricant, polished triggers, lightened bolts, etc. Another example could be caps versus flint.

    I am opposed to this ban.
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    "ATF requests comments on this ANPRM from all interested persons with information about the enumerated questions. ATF specifically requests comments on the questions listed above,..."

    This from the official site. It appears that this is an obvious attempt to limit comments to a constrictive set of marginally relevant questions. Are y'all mostly blowing these questions off and saying what's actually on your mind, or do you recommend other approaches?
    That was how I read it. I took a lot of time to try to weave what I wanted to say into answers to their dumb set of questions.
     

    mstrmstr

    Member
    Sep 21, 2013
    5
    My submitted comment

    Without feeling or opinions I submitted this to the Federal Register.

    To Whom,

    Whereas the intent of application to the definition of machinegun of such legal devices described as but not exclusive of "bump stock" is to thwart crime the reality is this premise is not true. Criminalization of such legal devices will have no effect on such crimes as murder as the criminals intent is to do harm without regard to any law.

    Rapid firing of many semi-automatic is also known to be included in many sporting events such as Three Gun and Steel Plate challenges which are very popular now.
    Therefore I contend that such addition to definition is of no value.

    In reviewing FBI very low statistics on semi-automatic rifle crime you will also find that semi automatics are of minor concern.

    The current definitions have worked well since initiated in 1934 and there is no reason to believe changing it will be of any positive consequence.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,934
    Messages
    7,259,584
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom