Proposed bump stock ban

[SpiritDragon]

What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban that has been announced? Do you think it will pass/ hold up? Is it a step in the right direction? Wrong? Why?

I have no hidden motive other than to get other people's thoughts on the matter.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban that has been announced? Do you think it will pass/ hold up? Is it a step in the right direction? Wrong? Why?

I have no hidden motive other than to get other people's thoughts on the matter.

The question you ask is really multiple questions for each sub-question you asked.

Will it hold up?  That is a tough one to answer even for lawyers.  The thin line is that it doesn't actually by dictionary definition change a semi- into a fully-automatic weapon.  It does make it fire at a rate similar to a fully-automatic weapon.  The additional thing that puts it over the edge of actually being fully-automatic is that as far as the user is concerned,  the human interaction with the bump-stock modified weapon is functionally identical to the human interaction with a fully-automatic weapon.  And that is the fine line that the DOJ and the court system (including the Supreme Court) will have to determine.  It really is a close call.

As step in the right direction?  Well, what is the right direction?  I personally don't believe gun regulation is the answer to anything that we usually are shocked at.  I also believe the second amendment to be sacrosanct.  The only restrictions I'd be ok with are age restrictions and criminal background restrictions.  A step toward a gun free society?  Yes, it will be a step toward a gun free society.  But I don't consider that the right direction.

Is it wrong?  For me and my beliefs in the 2A, YES! IT"S FREAKING WRONG!!!

However, given the current laws on restrictions for fully automatic weapons, I don't see banning bump stocks as any different than banning fully automatic weapons.  Yes, there is a technical difference that could be a work around current legislation.  But in general principle, there really is no difference to me.

I personally would never buy or use a fully-automatic weapon or a bump stock because it is of no use to me.  I believe in the sniper's motto: one shot, one kill.  I take time with each shot to make each shot count.  I don't miss.  Fully automatic weapons are notoriously inaccurate and are only used as an area-effect weapon or for suppression.  That's just not the gunman that I am.  Others... yeah.  That might be their function and their way of doing things.  And it may just be a lot of fun for the recreational gunman.  But it's just not my thing.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban that has been announced? Do you think it will pass/ hold up? Is it a step in the right direction? Wrong? Why?

I have no hidden motive other than to get other people's thoughts on the matter.

Considering that almost all homicides involving guns are from semi automatic weapons that havent been modified I would have to say its not really the right direction to fight against with gun violence. Raising the age to buy guns, stronger requirements and background checks including a mental health requirement are going to be more the right direction. But...if we are really wanting to end violent behavior which includes gun violence then we have to address why marriages fail and from there its impact on tge family, home and community. It may be that preventing gun violence may be best avoided by addressing and passing laws dealing with online pornography.

[person0]

I think that any law impeding or infringing on gun ownership rights is already more than what the constitution allows.  I think people who don't realize that we are supposed to be capable of equally defending ourselves against our countries military are living in a fantasy hoping that history will never repeat itself.

Edited March 10, 2018 by person0

[SpiritDragon]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The question you ask is really multiple questions for each sub-question you asked.

Thanks for your thoughts.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Will it hold up?  That is a tough one to answer even for lawyers.  The thin line is that it doesn't actually by dictionary definition change a semi- into a fully-automatic weapon.  It does make it fire at a rate similar to a fully-automatic weapon.  The additional thing that puts it over the edge of actually being fully-automatic is that as far as the user is concerned,  the human interaction with the bump-stock modified weapon is functionally identical to the human interaction with a fully-automatic weapon.  And that is the fine line that the DOJ and the court system (including the Supreme Court) will have to determine.  It really is a close call.

I suppose it's only fair to say that time will tell. I guess I'm just curious to get insights from those more familiar with US law than I am. Perhaps you or @Just_A_Guy could explain to me how this is able to bypass congress. I initially thought it had to pass congress when I posted, but the article I linked states that they can bypass a congressional log-jam and I don't understand how that works - and maybe it doesn't really matter, but I'm a curious person.

Quote

As step in the right direction?  Well, what is the right direction?  I personally don't believe gun regulation is the answer to anything that we usually are shocked at.  I also believe the second amendment to be sacrosanct.  The only restrictions I'd be ok with are age restrictions and criminal background restrictions.  A step toward a gun free society?  Yes, it will be a step toward a gun free society.  But I don't consider that the right direction.

Is it wrong?  For me and my beliefs in the 2A, YES! IT"S FREAKING WRONG!!!

That, my friend, is the question... I too, tend to believe that regulations aren't the answer. Yet, I do feel something needs to be done - I just don't know what.

Quote

However, given the current laws on restrictions for fully automatic weapons, I don't see banning bump stocks as any different than banning fully automatic weapons.  Yes, there is a technical difference that could be a work around current legislation.  But in general principle, there really is no difference to me.

I personally would never buy or use a fully-automatic weapon or a bump stock because it is of no use to me.  I believe in the sniper's motto: one shot, one kill.  I take time with each shot to make each shot count.  I don't miss.  Fully automatic weapons are notoriously inaccurate and are only used as an area-effect weapon or for suppression.  That's just not the gunman that I am.  Others... yeah.  That might be their function and their way of doing things.  And it may just be a lot of fun for the recreational gunman.  But it's just not my thing.

This is why I generally do agree with the idea of banning bump stocks. If automatic weapons are banned than shouldn't modifications to make the rate of fire comparable be banned? On the other hand I question whether a ban will really do much of anything anyway.I mean with the planning that goes into an organized attack how hard would it be to simply build a fully automatic Kalashnikov?

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Considering that almost all homicides involving guns are from semi automatic weapons that havent been modified I would have to say its not really the right direction to fight against with gun violence. Raising the age to buy guns, stronger requirements and background checks including a mental health requirement are going to be more the right direction. But...if we are really wanting to end violent behavior which includes gun violence then we have to address why marriages fail and from there its impact on tge family, home and community. It may be that preventing gun violence may be best avoided by addressing and passing laws dealing with online pornography.

How strong is the evidence between porn use and murder? It'd need to be strong evidence before any legislation to that end could be taken seriously, no?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I guess I'm just curious to get insights from those more familiar with US law than I am.

I don't have the law in front of me, so please accept a paraphrasing (which is far from sufficient when talking about legal interpretations).\

"A fully-automatic firearm is a weapon which will fire multiple rounds by a single activation of the trigger."

With a bump stock, the kick from each round is channeled in such a way that it will use that energy to move the gun back and forth in such a manner that the finger used to squeeze the trigger remains in position as the trigger moves back and forth in rapid cycles.  This is how multiple rounds are fired with a single motion of the finger.  But it gets around the law's verbiage because it is still multiple trigger actions with a single finger action.

[SpiritDragon]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't have the law in front of me, so please accept a paraphrasing (which is far from sufficient when talking about legal interpretations).\

"A fully-automatic firearm is a weapon which will fire multiple rounds by a single activation of the trigger."

With a bump stock, the kick from each round is channeled in such a way that it will use that energy to move the gun back and forth in such a manner that the finger used to squeeze the trigger remains in position as the trigger moves back and forth in rapid cycles.  This is how multiple rounds are fired with a single motion of the finger.  But it gets around the law's verbiage because it is still multiple trigger actions with a single finger action.

If that doesn't sound like a letter of the law not matching the intent of the law situation. 

[Just_A_Guy]

@SpiritDragon I’m not familiar with gun law generally; but in principle there’s a difference between a “law” and a “regulation”.  Laws are passed by Congress and codified in the United States Code (U.S.C.) But Congress doesn’t like details; so often they’ll say “here’s what we want done generally, and the President’s agencies can make up additional rules to explain exactly how it’s going to happen.”  Those rules are called “regulations” and are codified in the “Code of Federal Regulations” (C.F.R.).  From what I gather, Trump is tinkering with the CFR; which the NRA has already suggested he (by means of the ATF) can do without violating the governing Congressionally-enacted statutes.  So their response to this will be very interesting.  Again, I haven’t followed this closely; but I think the NRA’s line was that bump stocks should be regulated like full-auto weapons (which are highly difficult to obtain, but not technically banned); whereas I’m hearing that Trump is going for a full and unconditional ban on bump stocks.  So the NRA might still oppose this.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

I think that any law impeding or infringing on gun ownership rights is already more than what the constitution allows.  I think people who don't realize that we are supposed to be capable of equally defending ourselves against our countries military are living in a fantasy hoping that history will never repeat itself.

Was the second amendment written with the intent to have armed individuals, or to have an armed citizenry at the state level (state militia) that could stand in opposition to the federal government? Would it infringe too much on gun rights to re-instate local militia groups and restrict certain classes of weapons only to militia personnel?  

[SpiritDragon]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@SpiritDragon I’m not familiar with gun law generally; but in principle there’s a difference between a “law” and a “regulation”.  Laws are passed by Congress and codified in the United States Code (U.S.C.) But Congress doesn’t like details; so often they’ll say “here’s what we want done generally, and the President’s agencies can make up additional rules to explain exactly how it’s going to happen.”  Those rules are called “regulations” and are codified in the “Code of Federal Regulations” (C.F.R.).  From what I gather, Trump is tinkering with the CFR; which the NRA has already suggested he (by means of the ATF) can do without violating the governing Congressionally-enacted statutes.  So their response to this will be very interesting.  Again, I haven’t followed this closely; but I think the NRA’s line was that bump stocks should be regulated like full-auto weapons (which are highly difficult to obtain, but not technically banned); whereas I’m hearing that Trump is going for a full and unconditional ban on bump stocks.  So the NRA might still oppose this.

Okay, that makes sense. If the NRA is upset by Trump how much power do they have to do anything about it in this case? Aside from not endorsing the President for a second term.

[person0]

17 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Was the second amendment written with the intent to have armed individuals, or to have an armed citizenry at the state level (state militia) that could stand in opposition to the federal government? Would it infringe too much on gun rights to re-instate local militia groups and restrict certain classes of weapons only to militia personnel?  

Although I would certainly be in favor of that as a step in the right direction, especially if the local militias are not associated with the Military, I do not agree that that is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's verbiage.  The ratified version states:

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The militia is a statement of necessity to the security of a free state.  However, the right is clearly stated as the right of the people, not the right of the militia.  The right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.  Individuals have the right to bear arms, the state has the responsibility of a militia.  You could remove everything before the comma, and the right would still stand.

Edited March 10, 2018 by person0

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

What are your thoughts on the bump stock ban that has been announced? Do you think it will pass/ hold up? Is it a step in the right direction? Wrong? Why?

Well, after an emotional news story with an emotional impact that has everyone's emotions running high, politicians understand that emotions are energy, and if there's something that politicians do, it's get in front of a bunch of people running in a certain direction, so they can take credit for leading them.

Practically speaking, since everyone is screaming "we've got to do something", banning bump-stocks is pretty unoffensive.  I mean, the usual "it will accomplish absolutely nothing useful" is the norm for new gun legislation.  But honestly, bump stocks are attempts to circumvent the intent of established law with which I agree - probably shouldn't have machine guns be available to the general public without an awful lot of jumping through hoops first.

[SpiritDragon]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

Although I would certainly be in favor of that as a step in the right direction, especially if the local militias are not associated with the Military, I do not agree that that is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's verbiage.  The ratified version states:

The militia is a statement of necessity to the security of a free state.  However, the right is clearly stated as the right of the people, not the right of the militia.  The right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.  Individuals have the right to bear arms, the state has the responsibility of a militia.  You could remove everything before the coma, and the right would still stand.

When did it go comatose? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

The militia is a statement of necessity to the security of a free state.  However, the right is clearly stated as the right of the people, not the right of the militia.  The right of the people shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia.  Individuals have the right to bear arms, the state has the responsibility of a militia.  You could remove everything before the comma, and the right would still stand.

Interesting definitional changes:

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Quote

[Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

Google Dictionary / Oxford Dictionary

Quote

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Miriam Webster

Quote

1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency. 
2. a body of citizens organized for military service
3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Dictionary.com

Quote

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Remember that the concept of the Militia into the "National Guard" has evolved.  Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Edited March 11, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

Okay, that makes sense. If the NRA is upset by Trump how much power do they have to do anything about it in this case? Aside from not endorsing the President for a second term.

IIRC proposed regulations have a public comment period; but once the period is elapsed the president can basically do what he wants (see, e.g., the FTC’s recent overturning of Obama-era net neutrality regulations).  I mean, regulations have to be constitutional and can’t conflict with/exceed the scope of their authorizing statutes; so I suppose the NRA can always sue . . .

[Grunt]

I can't think of a single gun control measure I support.  This proposed one is no different.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm generally against all forms of gun control, and this is no different. All gun laws do is restrict law abiding people from getting guns/supplies for guns. These people aren't the problem. The problem is psychopaths who want to kill people and don't follow the law in the first place. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by MormonGator

[SpiritDragon]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm generally against all forms of gun control, and this is no different. All gun laws do is restrict law abiding people from getting guns/supplies for guns. These people aren't the problem. The problem is psychopaths who want to kill people and don't follow the law in the first place. 

Gee, you mean to say that you think if killing people was against the law it would stop homicide! 

[lostinwater]

5 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I have no hidden motive other than to get other people's thoughts on the matter.

i'm against the government doing probably most of the things it's been expanded to do over the years - in theory.  In practice, it's immensely more complicated.  i tend to agree with what @NeuroTypical has said.  There's a lot of people tripping over one another as they try to do something - that doesn't get them slapped too hard by either of the two groups of people they represent.  

i don't know if there is a really good solution to this - at least that has any chance of happening.  The pressure gauge on the pressure cooker we call society is being increased by probably a few thousand different heat sources in some extremely complex ways.  

Governments tend to have to step in and do in a unpleasantly intrusive and inefficient way what those in a society cannot do on their own.  It's sad, but it may be the best of the small number of options available - at least in my opinion.  It's a fine line between a law that only serves to keep law-abiding people honest, and the law with effective safeguards/consequences that succeeds in defeating/deterring the average non-law-abiding person from breaking that law.  i hope we can find it.  

[Still_Small_Voice]

The problem I see with some people demanding more restrictions on civilian guns is almost all are really uneducated regarding firearms and the laws we already have.  Those demanding more laws look at guns as instruments of death rather than tools that can save your life.  I believe firearms in civilian hands likely save about 100,000 people per year in America (but the number is actually very difficult to figure out).  Most of this is the deterrent factor.  (It is a line of thinking such as I don't want to break in to that house while those people are home, they may shoot me.)

We do not need magazine capacity restrictions, raising the age limit, bump stock bans or waiting periods when purchasing firearms.  We have all the firearm laws we need.  What we need is more enforcement on current laws, and well trained, concealed carry armed personnel in schools and in other locations to make things harder for those who wish to murder people.  Murderers are not deterred by laws but they are stopped by force.

[SpiritDragon]

19 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

The problem I see with some people demanding more restrictions on civilian guns is almost all are really uneducated regarding firearms and the laws we already have.  Those demanding more laws look at guns as instruments of death rather than tools that can save your life.  I believe firearms in civilian hands likely save about 100,000 people per year in America (but the number is actually very difficult to figure out).  Most of this is the deterrent factor.  (It is a line of thinking such as I don't want to break in to that house while those people are home, they may shoot me.)

We do not need magazine capacity restrictions, raising the age limit, bump stock bans or waiting periods when purchasing firearms.  We have all the firearm laws we need.  What we need is more enforcement on current laws, and well trained, concealed carry armed personnel in schools and in other locations to make things harder for those who wish to murder people.  Murderers are not deterred by laws but they are stopped by force.

I've heard this before and I'm prone to believe it (USA has sufficient gun regulations/laws in place). Aside from armed security everywhere you go, how would you go about improving enforcing. Does the so-called gun show loophole need to be changed at least? One thing I absolutely agree with is that a lot of people weigh in when they don't know the first thing they are talking about.

[SpiritDragon]

i'm against the government doing probably most of the things it's been expanded to do over the years - in theory.  In practice, it's immensely more complicated.  i tend to agree with what @NeuroTypical has said.  There's a lot of people tripping over one another as they try to do something - that doesn't get them slapped too hard by either of the two groups of people they represent.  

i don't know if there is a really good solution to this - at least that has any chance of happening.  The pressure gauge on the pressure cooker we call society is being increased by probably a few thousand different heat sources in some extremely complex ways.  

Governments tend to have to step in and do in a unpleasantly intrusive and inefficient way what those in a society cannot do on their own.  It's sad, but it may be the best of the small number of options available - at least in my opinion.  It's a fine line between a law that only serves to keep law-abiding people honest, and the law with effective safeguards/consequences that succeeds in defeating/deterring the average non-law-abiding person from breaking that law.  i hope we can find it.  

So true @lostinwater. For instance, I agree with the idea that wholesale gun restriction would take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens - the kind you'd hope are packing when the psychopath enters the building shooting it up. On the flip side, I suppose that to suggest that just because a law will still be broken doesn't generally seem like a great line of reasoning for implementing it.

[Colirio]

We're not going to legislate our way to safety any more than we have legislated our way to ending poverty, ending illegal drug use, or building up the family unit in society. 

 

The real trouble is that banning bump stocks does absolutely nothing to solve the issue. And so, after the next tragedy, what will be the next item on the growing chopping block of public frustration? 

 

Our freedoms have eroded because we keep giving them away, inch after inch, through the years. I am not ok with giving any more inches. Period. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

How strong is the evidence between porn use and murder? It'd need to be strong evidence before any legislation to that end could be taken seriously, no?

Lets change the question. How strong is the evidence between porn use and divorce? From studies of surveys I have read, more than half of relationships and  marriages that end in separation or divorce were the direct result of pornograpgy addiction.

Now, we know that there is a direct link between broken homes/fatherless homes and violent crime.

So, connecting the dots, if we want to eliminate violent crimes perhaps we can do better to pass laws prohibiting pornography.