-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns
- Thread starter VostocK
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! 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!
Member Benefits:
Justice Brown had some intelligent responses for a woman that doesn't know what a woman is. I sense some more infringement is coming.
John Crump with Flying Rich recorded it. The Government (Solicitor General) keeps citing over and over, and hammering on what the NRA President said about bump stocks being a machine gun. The Solicitor General's repetition of what the sell-out NRA FUDD said, is countless. It's also apparent most of the justices, if not all of them, are completely clueless about firearms and how they operate. John and Rich have immediate remarks after the oral arguments end.
Last edited:
My biggest problem with the argument against bumpstocks is that the bumpstock is itself a machine gun. I haven't listened to the whole oral arguments so far, but do any of the justices ever ask the question, hey, wait a minute here, can the bumpstock fire anything by itself? How is it a machine gun without being coupled with a rifle. The hunk of plastic by itself is nothing.
Trump's order instructed the ATF to classify bump stocks as machine guns. They could argue that bump stocks, together with the semi-automatic rifle, effectively operate as a machine gun. You're guilty of posessing a machine gun if you have one of these things, even if you don't have a rifle to couple it with! That's redefining what a machine gun is. Am I wrong?
Trump's order instructed the ATF to classify bump stocks as machine guns. They could argue that bump stocks, together with the semi-automatic rifle, effectively operate as a machine gun. You're guilty of posessing a machine gun if you have one of these things, even if you don't have a rifle to couple it with! That's redefining what a machine gun is. Am I wrong?
If SCOTUS allows the ATF redefinition of what constitutes a machinegun to stand . . . thank the sclerotic gasping geezer NRA FUDD Traitors to the Constitution -- more worried about their bolt action hunting rifles and bird hunting break action shotguns than preserving and protecting the 2nd Amendment -- for officially and very publicly declaring a bump stock to be a machinegun. The NRA is directly responsible for this debacle -- once again Negotiating Rights Away.
Last edited:
I've always said it was a machinegun part, just like a "switch" ..it turns a semi into full auto. It doesn't really meet that definition of trigger pull, but it does manipulate the trigger for rate of fire. Until actual definition of rate of fire is changed, then a bump stock is in the gray area that really can't quit be classified a machinegun part yet even though we know it's intented purpose.
The ATF will then declare all AR-15 rifles to be machineguns and therefore illegal as someone can use a belt loop to bump fire it, and for the skilled, they need nothing, not even a belt loop, to bump fire one using nothing other than a semi-auto AR-15, both hands and their shoulder. Biden and his minions will be on the warpath to turn this into their desperately desired Assault Weapons of War Ban and we'll all be overnight felons filling the Federal Prison system for decades. They're already headed in that direction! Thank the NRA for this.
I’m not sure your argument will be effective or meaningful with the one you quoted.
I smell 2A but…
You are totally missing the point or points. Has NOTHING to do with the firearm used. It's all about the PARTS being used to turn or manipulate the firearm to represent a full auto weapon. The ar15 just happens to be center of attention because a specific item was made for it and it looks like an exact weapon used in the military.. just like the switch was specifically made for a glock handgun. Sooner or later, the glock most likely will fall to the same reterick the black rifle is in and a couple others in due time.
A bump stock is nothing like a glock switch. The glock switch lets you pull the trigger once and fire many rounds.
As mentioned above skilled shooters can do this with no assistance, all a bumpstock does is assist a novice or amateur shooter to do what the pros can do. Sort if a performance enhancer, that by itself doesn’t do anything.
As mentioned above skilled shooters can do this with no assistance, all a bumpstock does is assist a novice or amateur shooter to do what the pros can do. Sort if a performance enhancer, that by itself doesn’t do anything.
You're missing the point. If a "Bump Stock" is banned, the ATF will argue that "Bump Firing" an AR-15 is banned. You can "Bump Fire" an AR-15 with a belt loop, a rubber band, a shoestring, or nothing whatsoever with a bit of practice and development of the skill. Therefore every semi-auto rifle is readily converted into a machinegun in a matter of seconds -- or less -- and therefore by statute, it's a machine gun because it requires NOTHING whatsoever to be a "Bump Fired" machinegun. Therefore all semi-auto rifles and shotguns are BANNED machineguns. Read the law. Anything readily converted into a machinegun is a machinegun. You're ignoring how desperate Biden and his ATF minions are to completely disarm everyone and they'll use every conceivable hook they can imagine or invent to do so.
Once again you read into something not there. The wanting to ban ar15s has been on going because of its looks and before biden presidentcy. Your ridiculous comment has no bearing on a bumpstock. The PART OR PARTS to convert are whats up for the debate. You can use any ridiculous thing you state to do whatever but come back to earth and discuss the topic and not some what ifs or MacGyver made up gadgets.
The law defines what constitutes a machinegun. The bumpstock does not meet that definition. It is that simple. If the government wants to ban things that make a gun shoot faster, they need to pass a law that does that in Congress and get the President to sign it into law.
I wish the justices knew enough to ask that question. Because that's the logical conclusion. The argument they seem to be making is that a semiautomatic rifle can be turned into a machine gun using a bump stock, therefore the bump stock is a machine gun.
If that's true, then logically, two components together operate as a machine gun, the bump stock and the semi-auto rifle. So then it follows that if one of those components (the bump stock) is a machine gun, then either component is a machine gun because either can be coupled with its complement to make it operate as a machine gun.
All of this is pointless navel-gazing, out of context of black-letter statutory definition of "machine gun", which is the only thing that matters here.
A "Glock switch" does change a semi-auto firearm into a "machine gun" as defined in the statute. A bump stock does not.
You seem to be wrapped around the axle about "rate of fire", when "rate of fire" has nothing to do with the statutory definition of a "machine gun".
"The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
In fact, this issue is the very basis of the challenge to the ATF rule: because bump stocks do not change the single-round-per-single-trigger-pull mechanism of a firearm, yet ATF "deemed" them to be a "machine gun" (definition which does include parts), because they increase the rate of fire.
