Additional Regulations

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Worn, Dec 29, 2017.

  1. Worn

    Worn Constitutional Conservative

    Likes Received:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Northern Arizona
    There are differing views on the NRA's response to the "bump stock" issue.

    1) Some say that it's no big deal. The NRA is simply stalling for time. The NRA knows that BATFE cannot possibly change its position, so all is well.

    2) Others say, the NRA has sold us out. They have opened a huge can of worms and invited more RKBA infrongement on a wide scale.

    3) Still others listen to both sides and, possibly, have not made up their mind. Or don't care. They don't have or want bump stocks so they don't bother paying attention to the issue at all. "Golfers with guns."

    Those taking position (1) say that others "don't know how the game is played" in Washingtion and aren't looking at the Big Picture. Those they criticize say that their critics mistakenly believe that only bunp stocks are at risk and, having no use for bump stocks themselves, are more than happy to give them away.

    Who is right?

    Let's examine the most controversial part of the NRA's "Joint Statement."

    In adition to calling on BATFE to review yet again whether or not bump stocks comply with federal law, the NRA said:

    "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

    The NRA stated in a most public manner, that it "believes" that devices which make semi-auto rifles more "like" full-auto rifles are in need of "additional regulations." You cannot un-ring that bell. It's out there. Forever.

    So, it's not necessarilly about "how the game is played." It's not even about this particular (bump stock) game and may not even be about this playing season.

    If, in a future Congress, perhaps controlled by Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, they decide to offer legislation to impose "additional regulations" on "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles,"(DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR) the NRA dare not oppose such legislation without looking hypocritical.

    Two questions occur to me:

    1. What are the features that can make a semi-auto rifle more like a fully-auto rifle?
    2. What might such "additional regulations" look like?

    Regarding (1): Rate of fire is only one way in which a semi-auto can function "like" a full-auto. The NRA did not call for additional regulations only on devices that make a semi-auto's rate of fire more like a full-auto. The language leaves open all other features that make a semi-auto more like a full auto. A select fire M16 has interchangeable magazines. An AR15 has interchangeable magazines. Interchangeable magazines are devices that makes a semi-auto more "like" a full-auto.

    Some machine guns are belt fed. A belt-fed AR15 is "like" a full-auto weapon in that respect. Do machineguns have flash suppressors and / or muzzle brakes?

    Do you perhaps see where "devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles" might be a pretty long list of devices?

    Regarding (2):

    • They could treat DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR as machine guns; Only those made before 1986 can be registered and you must pay a tax.
    • They could treat DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR as firearms under GCA68, You would have to buy them from Federally-licensed dealers and fill out a 4473 and pass a background check. That would be pointless as anyone able to buy a gun that accepts a bump stock (such as the LV mass murderer) would still be able to buy one.
    • They could simply impose an outright ban on DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR. The Attorney General or some-such would maintain a list of devices banned at her discretion.

    In summary: The NRA made a hugh consession in their Joint Statement. A whopper. How can they possibly oppose future "additional regulation" of DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR?

    Before you go calling me Chicken Little, running around declaring that the sky is falling, please do two things:

    Make a list of DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR. Do not limit yourself to only rate-of-fire related devices like bump stocks and trigger groups. Cast as wide a net as our enemies will when interpreting DDTAS-ARTFLF-AR.

    Now imagine the possible "additional regulations" that might apply to such devices.

    Still not worried?
    Old Buzzard 74 likes this.
  2. Old Buzzard 74

    Old Buzzard 74

    Likes Received:
    Dec 25, 2016

  3. JK-linux


    Likes Received:
    Mar 5, 2009
    North Star State
    I'm fine with it.
  4. fastbolt


    Likes Received:
    Jun 9, 2002
    CA Central Coast
    Well, looking at how CA legislators have dealt with "multiburst trigger activators" (which include bump stocks) for quite a number of years, and as eager to create anti-gun legislation as they've become over the years, even they haven't expanded the existing Penal Code definitions related to bump stocks to include other accessories.

    Longer article:

    The sky may not exactly be falling.

    However, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a continued nationwide impetus to more clearly define bump stocks as another type of multiburst activator, and look to either create a federal law prohibiting them, or a regulatory change to cover them.

    This is what can happen when what's basically a "novelty item" for some gun owners is suddenly thrust into the public's eye when it's used to commit a heinous and horrific criminal act of violence. I guess we'll see how it goes.