Fienstein bump stock bill

[SidewaysTA]

That sounds accurate to me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

Is my perception inaccurate?

I think so. See, your reading...

I read it to say that they believe bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun, ...

...goes way beyond the actual text.

The NRA didn't say bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun. They simply said that...

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

..., a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.

Of course, I'm with you completely when you say...

...they are asking the BATFE to bureaucratically decree them as such (something they should be condemning the practice of; not requesting more of it),...

...because this is where the NRA outsmarted itself. Apparently, the NRA thought they could throw bump stocks under the bus, put Slide-Fire out of business, and basically forget about the whole mess if they could just get BATFE to issue yet another letter contradicting a previous letter. Since such letters seem to often be pretty arbitrary in their reasoning, the NRA apparently thought that such a letter could go out and the entire issue could be thereafter ignored.

That didn't happen. What did happen is that a whole lot of people got an inaccurate perception that "The NRA supports gun control in some way that I don't really understand so they must be willing to support any gun control anyone wants to propose!"

That's clearly wrong. The NRA was trying to play a bureaucratic rule-making game but most people don't know enough about the processes involved to understand that. Most people just perceived a change in position and decided it meant whatever they wanted it to mean.

This is why I'm angry with the NRA's judgement in this matter. Instead of banking on an arcane, technical rule-making strategy, they should have foreseen the way they would be misinterpreted. No, I don't expect people to be able to see the future but if you're in the business of influencing people I do expect you to anticipate the basic human reactions that will result from any particular course of action. In this case, the wording and the basic idea of the statement were wrong on so many levels that it shocked me; the NRA should have anticipated that plenty of anti-gun people would take their statement and run with it.

In short, the NRA failed us in a situation where we had every right to expect them to know better.

I don't expect any human institution to be perfect; I can forgive, eventually. But this is a screw-up so big it should get you fired off your job, instantly, and escorted off the premises by security. Unfortunately, we really don't have anyone else who can take over the position so we're stuck with them for a while.

I've already stated how my giving will be impacted.

I just hope the NRA can be a little smarter over the next year or so. They've seriously hurt their credibility and it's going to be tough to earn it back.

Side note: I just hope to God that some commenters (like Yankee Marshall on YouTube) are wrong when they say that this probably wasn't a mistake and the NRA screwed up on purpose, just to keep the fight going and keep having a reason to hit us up for more donations. Even I'm not that cynical.

 

[TheDan]

The NRA didn't say bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun. They simply said that...
..., a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.

Definitely not mechanically equivalent, but "additional regulations" would make it legally equivalent. Like shoelaces...

What did happen is that a whole lot of people got an inaccurate perception that "The NRA supports gun control in some way that I don't really understand so they must be willing to support any gun control anyone wants to propose!"

That's clearly wrong. The NRA was trying to play a bureaucratic rule-making game but most people don't know enough about the processes involved to understand that. Most people just perceived a change in position and decided it meant whatever they wanted it to mean.

I don't know what other's perceptions are, but I'm definitely irritated that they are participating in the bureaucratic rule shenanigans. That's not something that should be validated at all; 2A related or not.

Asking for "additional regulations" violates their purpose.

 

[easy rider]

I think so. See, your reading...
...goes way beyond the actual text.

The NRA didn't say bump stocks convert a firearm to a machine gun. They simply said that......, a statement that clearly does not say "convert" but says "...allow...to function like..." Around here, we understand that those two are not legally or mechanically equivalent.

Of course, I'm with you completely when you say......because this is where the NRA outsmarted itself. Apparently, the NRA thought they could throw bump stocks under the bus, put Slide-Fire out of business, and basically forget about the whole mess if they could just get BATFE to issue yet another letter contradicting a previous letter. Since such letters seem to often be pretty arbitrary in their reasoning, the NRA apparently thought that such a letter could go out and the entire issue could be thereafter ignored.

That didn't happen. What did happen is that a whole lot of people got an inaccurate perception that "The NRA supports gun control in some way that I don't really understand so they must be willing to support any gun control anyone wants to propose!"

That's clearly wrong. The NRA was trying to play a bureaucratic rule-making game but most people don't know enough about the processes involved to understand that. Most people just perceived a change in position and decided it meant whatever they wanted it to mean.

This is why I'm angry with the NRA's judgement in this matter. Instead of banking on an arcane, technical rule-making strategy, they should have foreseen the way they would be misinterpreted. No, I don't expect people to be able to see the future but if you're in the business of influencing people I do expect you to anticipate the basic human reactions that will result from any particular course of action. In this case, the wording and the basic idea of the statement were wrong on so many levels that it shocked me; the NRA should have anticipated that plenty of anti-gun people would take their statement and run with it.

In short, the NRA failed us in a situation where we had every right to expect them to know better.

I don't expect any human institution to be perfect; I can forgive, eventually. But this is a screw-up so big it should get you fired off your job, instantly, and escorted off the premises by security. Unfortunately, we really don't have anyone else who can take over the position so we're stuck with them for a while.

I've already stated how my giving will be impacted.

I just hope the NRA can be a little smarter over the next year or so. They've seriously hurt their credibility and it's going to be tough to earn it back.

Side note: I just hope to God that some commenters (like Yankee Marshall on YouTube) are wrong when they say that this probably wasn't a mistake and the NRA screwed up on purpose, just to keep the fight going and keep having a reason to hit us up for more donations. Even I'm not that cynical.

For the most part I agree with your assessment, but I also think the NRA needs a wake up call and then maybe if I see that they are truly on the right track I can go back. For now, I hope my cut off from them and many others have provided some kind of wake up. I supported them to be my voice in the matter and they failed me on this matter and I find it hard to support failure.

 

[Molon Labe]

There is so much good info and intelligent conversation in this thread guys I just wanted to say thanks. I learned a few things here today. Great resource, keep up the good work.

 

[benenglish]

There is so much good info and intelligent conversation in this thread...

Most likely by accident. Has to be.

 

[easy rider]

There is so much good info and intelligent conversation in this thread guys I just wanted to say thanks. I learned a few things here today. Great resource, keep up the good work.

I had to check to make sure that "good" and "intelligent" could be used in the same sentence here.

 

[jrbfishn]

Only loosely.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

This is what I wish the NRA would have said, and why I still support GOA:

Feinstein, Republicans Use Bump Stocks to Ban Magazines

Today, I am preparing a letter that I will send to Representatives and Senators on Capitol Hill.

Why? Because once again, the anti-gun Left is demanding that we as a nation accept gun control, either through legislation or regulation, while the Congress sits on every single element of our agenda.

Reciprocity, veterans' rights, hearing protection, and anti-gun Obamacare repeal -- Chuck Schumer has promised to kill all of these reforms.

Even so, gun owners are being asked to sign off on Schumer's treasured gun control because the Leftist media demands that you do so.

At Gun Owners of America, we are telling Congress that we will NOT support one iota of gun control.

The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." We at GOA will not support any infringements of our rights -- as they are not privileges from the government that can be revoked at will.

To support an infringement on bump stocks will weaken our ability to oppose the next infringement that comes down the pike.

Speaking of these items, the nation has heard a lot about "bump stocks" during the last week. These devices use the recoil of a semi-automatic rifle to reset the trigger and accelerate the rate at which rounds can be discharged.

Anyone who supports a ban on these items needs to realize that one can create the same "bump fire" effect using rubber bands or belt loops. So should Congress ban these items next?

 

[seeker_two]

I blame the NRA for this bill getting any traction. Had they not made such an asinine statement that breathed new life into a dying anti-gun movement, this bill would have died on the legislative scrap heap like all the anti-gun bills of the last five years. The NRA statements almost seem like they WANT the anti-gunners to win one to drum up business.....like the NAACP finding "racism" everywhere it can.

Time for new leadership.....or a new group to take over the fight. Second Amendment Foundation, anyone?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I blame the NRA for this bill getting any traction. Had they not made such an asinine statement that breathed new life into a dying anti-gun movement, this bill would have died on the legislative scrap heap like all the anti-gun bills of the last five years. The NRA statements almost seem like they WANT the anti-gunners to win one to drum up business.....like the NAACP finding "racism" everywhere it can.

Time for new leadership.....or a new group to take over the fight. Second Amendment Foundation, anyone?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

SAF was one of my first gun rights orgs. Of course at the time I lived in Seattle and the headquarters were in next door neighbor Bellevue.

 

[Younggun]

I do t think the NRA is to blame for the bill getting traction.

Even among the more active pro gun Americans (like those on this forum) many find bump stocks to be a bit of a gimmick and have little interest. Although a greater number of our demographic will still fight bump stock legislation.

Applying that to a bell curve of willingness to expend energy in defense of gun rights, bump stocks are probably about the lowest of the low hanging fruit for anti gunners to go after. It's got traction because far fewer people are willing to expend energy fighting against legislation banning them, far more people (even gun owners) will see it as a real infringement.

I've been getting Emails from Cruz weekly since the Vegas shooting and he has yet to mention any defense of 2A rights, only speaking on Harvey relief and tax cuts.

Repubs don't want this fight. None of them want to touch it. The media has been quiet about it (compared to previous calls for gun control). My opinion is that most politicians feel only a small minority of gun owners will get upset about a bump stock ban and hope that the bill won't make it to a vote, and if it does they will probably try to quietly pass it and move on (with possibly a few voting against but still not making any noise about it).


The NRA made a stupid statement, but the bills relating to bump stocks would have had much more traction than recent gun legislation without the NRAs gaff. They just aren't popular enough to draw widespread support from gun owners and many are still too short sited to see the broader effects of such bills.

 

[easy rider]

I do t think the NRA is to blame for the bill getting traction.

Even among the more active pro gun Americans (like those on this forum) many find bump stocks to be a bit of a gimmick and have little interest. Although a greater number of our demographic will still fight bump stock legislation.

Applying that to a bell curve of willingness to expend energy in defense of gun rights, bump stocks are probably about the lowest of the low hanging fruit for anti gunners to go after. It's got traction because far fewer people are willing to expend energy fighting against legislation banning them, far more people (even gun owners) will see it as a real infringement.

I've been getting Emails from Cruz weekly since the Vegas shooting and he has yet to mention any defense of 2A rights, only speaking on Harvey relief and tax cuts.

Repubs don't want this fight. None of them want to touch it. The media has been quiet about it (compared to previous calls for gun control). My opinion is that most politicians feel only a small minority of gun owners will get upset about a bump stock ban and hope that the bill won't make it to a vote, and if it does they will probably try to quietly pass it and move on (with possibly a few voting against but still not making any noise about it).


The NRA made a stupid statement, but the bills relating to bump stocks would have had much more traction than recent gun legislation without the NRAs gaff. They just aren't popular enough to draw widespread support from gun owners and many are still too short sited to see the broader effects of such bills.

If there was a bill that specifically stated bumpfire stocks and related names and it passed, I can live with it. The problem is that the bills are too broad in their statement to include just about anything they can think of that would enhance a performance of a firearm and where would it end? Single shot firearms?

 

[Younggun]

If there was a bill that specifically stated bumpfire stocks and related names and it passed, I can live with it. The problem is that the bills are too broad in their statement to include just about anything they can think of that would enhance a performance of a firearm and where would it end? Single shot firearms?

Personally, I'd still not be happy about such a specific bill passing. But this makes my point about why these bills have more traction than typical anti gun legislation.

I agree with the broad scope though, and that is what many less politically active gun owners will fail to see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

That reminds me, it's been over 2 weeks that I wrote my reps. against any gun legislation and finally I get one response:


Thank you for contacting me regarding federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.



As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.



It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals upon which our country was established. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the fundamental right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This landmark ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—thereby affirming that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ fundamental rights against state and local encroachment.



As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals.Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to harm innocent Americans. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and imposing tougher sentences on career criminals and violent offenders who use firearms—will reduce violence more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, lawmakers should work to reduce violence by enacting policies that increase treatment options for those who are dangerously mentally ill—a common factor in many acts of mass violence that have occurred in communities across the nation.





I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.



Sincerely,



JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

 

[Shady]

ya we all know a bump stock ban would have 100% stopped the crazy dude hell bent on killing people.

You would save more lives by making using a gun in a crime a capitol offense. And I would like but know it cant happen that punishment is delivered the day of conviction

How about on the 2nd DUI its considered assault with a deadly weapon.3rd is attempted murder

I bet doing those 2 things would save more lives than a national ban on all guns.

 

[Younggun]

Yeah, John Cornyn is a bastion of conservative values and steadfast resistance.

 

[easy rider]

Yeah, John Cornyn is a bastion of conservative values and steadfast resistance.

Even though it took two weeks, but then I haven't gotten any response from the others, other then it had been received.

 

[benenglish]

...the broad scope...is what many less politically active gun owners will fail to see.

It deeply saddens me that you are right about this.

 

[easy rider]

It deeply saddens me that you are right about this.

What's even sadder is it's not hard to write. I think it took me all of 15 minutes to a half hour to write to all my reps. Not like the old days of actually writing a letter and having to go through snail mail.