I think it's the other way around. I think ATF wants this to stand, as it gives them much more power and ability to ban/regulate than would a specific law.
Federal law just requires a tax stamp (which is a license for a particular firearm), but no "proof of need required" to own. From what I can google, Oregon doesn't have any laws more strict than the federal on this issue.
Last I knew, they certainly do since they cause the rifle to fire repeatedly and rapidly. A victim wouldn't argue the difference.
Which the bump stock does not accomplish. The firearm still functions as it was normally intended to, thus meaning no laws are being circumvented.
The end result would be classified as an illegal abuse and overstepping of authority not possessed by the ATF.
The rate of discharge does not enter into the equation from a legal standpoint, only the manner of operation.
LOL!!!!! this was NRA's response to the Las Vegas Massacre, where bump stocks were used to mow down 500 people. they were specifically talking about bump stocks and other such contraptions. go ahead and deny it, we'll giggle.
Do bump stocks allow for a semi-automatic rifle to discharge numerous rounds of ammunition with only one pull of the trigger being performed? If not, then they do not actually circumvent established laws, and there is no legal basis for prohibiting them.
Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations
Wow, nice dodge. The end result was the ATF banning bump stocks. You HOPE that it will "be classified as an illegal abuse...." Tell me, there have been several lawsuits filed to try to stop this ban. How many are the NRA a party to? Hint: The answer is not more than ZERO. Now go pay your NRA dues like a good drone while the adults handle this.
It’s a legal distinction. A machine gun fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. Semi auto fires a single round with each pull of the trigger. A bump stock does not change the mechanics of a semi auto.
Firing "repeatedly and rapidly" is not the legal definition of machine gun. The bump stock does not make the rifle a machine gun, nor is bump fire against the law.
Nothing in this statement implies that the NRA considers a bump stock to function like a fully automatic rifle. The fully automatic rifle fires multiple times with a single pull of the trigger - the bump stock (or rubber band equipped rifle) pulls and releases the trigger with every shot.
The lack of reading comprehension skills on the part of yourself is not the fault of the NRA, nor of anyone else present in this ongoing discussion. The key phrase in the above statement, that being "function like" means physically modifying a semi-automatic firearm to discharge multiple rounds of ammunition with only a single pull of the trigger, as per the existing federal definition of what a fully-automatic firearm actually is. The ATF has already stated previously, in unequivocal terms, that the bump stock does not achieve such. Otherwise it would have never been allowed for sale in the united states to begin with when it was first submitted for physical review and testing purposes. Simply because a firearm may theoretically be discharged at a higher rate of speed with the inclusion of a bump stock, does not mean anything of substance. There is no codified guideline that exists which dictates the maximum legal number of rounds of ammunition that can be discharged within the span of one minute. The speed of discharge and cycling does not matter in the least, as there is no fixed rate of fire for a firearm to qualify as fully-automatic in nature. The Thompson submachine gun for example, has a rate of fire of approximately eight hundred and thirty rounds a minute. That which is most commonly referred to as a minigun, by comparison, has a rate of fire up to six thousand rounds a minute.
sorry you're feeling backed into a corner, hence the need to insult me. the NRA is using plain laymen's terms. the bumpstock makes a semi auto function LIKE a fully-auto gun. its not identical, but LIKE a full auto. the NRA wants a bump-stock ban, and they got it. deal....with....it
Glad to see the usually stubborn and political hardheaded NRA supports the bump stock ban. their real fear was Congress taking up new gun legislation, and they hated that idea. they wanted the ATF to revise their rules, and they got their wish
You stated: The NRA is complicit in this new ban. There isn't even a question. You cannot support this statement in any way. Did you know this before you made your statement or are just now aware of it?
It is not an insult. It is pointing out that the inability to comprehend basic terms lays with yourself, rather than the statement of the NRA. Which are not being understood on the part of yourself. Except for the fact that it is not, as per established federal law, which is the only thing that truly matters in this particular discussion of facts. Not according to the wording of the statement it released, which has been misquoted on the part of yourself. The only one in need of "dealing" with anything is apparently that of yourself. Lack of reading comprehension skills lay as the fault of the one that lacks them, not those who actually possess them.
But rate of fire doesn’t determine machine gun vs not a machine gun. Look, I think bump stocks are stupid. But legally, the ATF has no authority to ban them.
To me, it's a minor distinction. The effect is achieved, and it's the effect that should be outlawed since the only purpose is to kill people.
To me, it's a minor distinction. The effect is achieved, and it's the effect that should be outlawed since the only purpose is to kill people. I think that since a bump stock has no practical use in either target shooting or hunting, a new law is needed that bans it --and a few other things.
