U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Band
- Thread starter Recusant
- Start date
- Status
TacticalPirate
Master Class
Yep, this assures all of their over reach from pistol braces to FRTs are null and void.
This has been going back and forth for years…..the SC has to make a final ruling of how laws are created.
TacticalPirate
Master Class
Garland's only recourse to challenge this ruling is to go to the Supreme Court, so he either doesn't and the rule stands or he goes to the court where he knows the outcome is the same.
Last edited:
Keystone19250
SAINT
So I need some help with this…..
Can someone, anyone explain to me the appeal of this device?
It is my understanding that this device is only designed to be mounted to an (AR)
Style rifle which I no longer own so I have no dog in this fight however I’m wondering…..
A) what is its purpose?
B) is it a need or just a want?
C) how exactly does it function?
Can someone, anyone explain to me the appeal of this device?
It is my understanding that this device is only designed to be mounted to an (AR)
Style rifle which I no longer own so I have no dog in this fight however I’m wondering…..
A) what is its purpose?
B) is it a need or just a want?
C) how exactly does it function?
HansGruber
Ronin
A) It simulates full auto fire by speeding up how fast you cycle the trigger.
B) It’s pure want, imho. Pure spray & pray, total crap accuracy…and I’ve never seen anyone using one who I’d want to be around shooting.
C) Basically, it’s a spring loaded stock & grip that forces the gun forward after recoil, hitting your trigger finger a little faster & firing another round. Repeat.
Keystone19250
SAINT
Thank you for that.
I appreciate and respect your opinion.
So basically…..
If not used responsibly this device increases the rate of fire for no other purpose than to boost one’s ego? And waist ammunition and unfortunately if used by someone who is bent on creating carnage can do so more quickly?
Why???
Ban them and be done with this.
My opinion!!!!!!!
Onewolf426
Professional
Problem with this, is where do you stop? Give them an inch, they will take a mile. I agree, this is nothing more than a way for those who want to feel "macho" to cover for their inadequacies and shortcomings. I, personally, see no benefit for a "fully automatic, or facsimile thereof", other than to spray lead. Military are trained with full autos, not civilians. Yes, we do have the 2nd Amendment, and if you can afford a full auto, then have at it. Short of a zombie apocalypse, and having your land on the border with Mexico where you have undesirables and ne'er do wells trespassing on your land, I see no real world need for such a weapon. Nor do I trust most civies with said weapon who have little to no training and an overactive ego. This is just my opinion. People are angry because a Bump Stock was banned. I am against the ban, but question the competency and bravado of those who purchased said device. Maybe a little more practice with your AR and less reliance on a glorified "stimulating device"?
Why, Firearms and parts Manufacturing companies want to sell gun folks stuff. 98% of it is unpractical. That is the basic answer. And it’s not unconstitutional if someone wants to waste their money on silliness. Convince gun folks they need something through the YouTube gun channels they sponsor and sit back
And as far as use the Las Vegas shooting was about as ideal scenerio and made bump stocks make the radar.
So while those happy with this 5th circus ruling it’s not over. The reason the ban was thrown out was because they did not go through the legislature. So my prediction is legislation on bump stocks will be tried in the next couple years.
As far as any Brace or 80% ruling that has a better chance of standing up to a point. The braces have morphed into actual stocked SBR (Even Clint Smith mentioned folks are cheating and not paying the tax stamp) so they want their $$
And the 80% crowd getting himmed up are the ones pushing the envelope selling everything to complete the firearm at once OR selling one completed.
Will be interesting to see how it goes.
Last edited:
Belt Fed
Hellcat
So you don't own one and don't want one so nobody else should have one? One of the most pronounced liberal statements ever. That's the same thing the anti gun folks say about firearms. Ban them, nobody needs them. as mentioned, you give them an inch and they will take it all. Nothing should be banned.
Net Engineer
Master Class
I agree that they're basically a useless toy, that serve no purpose other than giving someone cheap thrills. That being said if the Federal Government can ban them then, what's next? Silencers? Long Range Optics? +P Ammo?
You give them an inch; they'll slowly but surely take a mile all in the name of "protecting" us.
Onewolf426
Professional
It is legal to own a tank. Good luck affording one, and good luck trying to get ammunition for that tank. You can own a F-18, if you can afford the price tag. Good luck with arming it and getting one that is fully functional arming wise. And "silencers" are already regulated. A muffler for a gun is regulated. Lunacy.
Bassbob
Emissary
I have zero interest in one either, but banning them only reinforces the (false) belief that it's okay to ban something simply because it's unpopular or based on public opinion. After all, there is no shortage of people who feel exactly the same way about ALL guns. I guess you could argue that a bump stock isn't a gun and therefore isn't afforded 2A protection, but neither is a pistol brace, a suppressor or an 80% frame/lower.
TacticalPirate
Master Class
In the words of Hans Gruber in another thread, not seeing a purpose for bump stocks or FRTs or binary triggers is just sour grapes.
TacticalPirate
Master Class
With the weakest Speaker of the House in a century just now taking power after 15 rounds in which he had to make massive concessions to pro 2A chairmanships, their isn't political momentum and capital to go after something as esoteric as bump stocks.
Congress is in stalemate for the next two years minimum, and people don't even use the bump stock technology anymore.
What it does do is open up the ATF to civil lawsuits by the former manufacturers of them for lost inventory, and it does protect the manufacture of FRTs and binaries, which are already close to crossing the common use threshold.
TacticalPirate
Master Class
The ruling evicerates ATF over reach toward trying to regulate the rate of fire outside of the strict legally codified definition of a machine gun.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin.../pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf
Pages 17-21 shreds ATF's "single pull" language means the same as "single function"!
"The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger."
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin.../pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf
Pages 17-21 shreds ATF's "single pull" language means the same as "single function"!
"The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger."
Annihilator
Emissary
Been reading this thread, lots of good responses, my thought on this, these bump stocks SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED for sale, like Han’s said, “It’s pure want, imho. Pure spray & pray, total crap accuracy…” Just my thoughts
No, Look it does not matter if you think this is garbage or not. The point is that a bureaucracy just can not change rules and make laws. If you want them banned then go through the proper process. Congress makes the the proposed laws, that is then ratified or vetoed by the President. Then that could be challenged by the judiciary. Just changing laws is not cool. That is the point of why this needs to be fought. What happens when they come after your hipowed sniper rifles (hunting bolt actions)? I mean who needs a rifle capable of shooting long distances?
This same changing of regulations and laws are currently happening with Braces, Pistols, 80% and 3d printing. It’s time to think bigger picture, not just what YOU think is practical.
We just went through this with shouldering vs not shouldering, it’s insanity.
Last edited:
Recusant
Hellcat
Yep, I agree. And if ATF had allowed the sale of bump stocks they should have regulated the manufacture, sale, and ownership as they would with any other NFA item. From the beginning the stocks should have been serial numbered and like other NFA items, one would have had to submit the paper work and pay for the tax stamp. This would have been a win for those just itching to burn up new rifle barrels and the anti-gunners would have had the satisfaction knowing that bump stocks were regulated by the gov't. To me, this would have been a common sense approach. I agree with XDMAN this should have been handled through Congressional action.
Last edited:
- Status