The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, long a foe of free and armed people, is introducing legislation (PDF) to ban “bump-fire stocks.”

“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun,” the bill states.”

Since The Zelman Partisans do value free and armed people, having an understanding of history when wanna-be tyrants like Feinstein succeeded, we utterly oppose this legislation.

We oppose it for the usual RKBA philosophical reasons. It is yet another infringement on the very right to life, as expressed through self defense.

We oppose it for practical reasons as well.

The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm is based in physics. Force is applied to the firing pin. That force and the pin’s mass determine it’s acceleration into the cartridge primer. The primer ignites at a given velocity for that cartridge; that in turn ignites the powder with its own ignition velocity. The bullet is propelled forward; force and mass again.

The force of the detonating powder also works to move the bolt backwards; the old “equal and opposite reaction.” How fast the bolt goes back is determined by its mass and the resistance of the spring behind it. When it has traveled all the way back, the spring applies force and pushes the mass forward once again.

The bolt is slowed as it strips the next round out of the magazine. Finally it moves the round’s mass into the chamber.

In a machine gun, the firing pin would continue forward starting the cycle over again. In a semiautomatic firearm, the pin does not go forward until the trigger (with its own mass and springs) returns to the ready positionand is manually operated again. So semiautomatics have an inherently slower rate of fire than machine guns, all else being equal.

The only way to even approach the theoretical maximum rate of fire of most semiautomatics is to have a fast finger.

Old-timers know the trick of pushing your rifle forward with your grip on the stock or barrel shroud as you fire. Recoil pushes the rifle back, and your hand acts as a spring to pull it forward driving the trigger into your finger. The mechanicals have typically cycled already, so the rifle fires again. It’s a fun trick, but wasteful of ammunition, and very inaccurate.

Thus were born “bump-fire” stocks. They merely provide a way to hold the rifle a little steadier while you perform the same silly stunt. They absolutely in no way increase the theoretical rate of fire. They help folks with slower fingers get a little closer to the theoretical.

Should Feinstein’s bill pass, it would necessitate outlawing holding the rifle by the stock like we did in the old days. I suppose possession of an off hand would be a felony.

In fact, this bill is so broadly written that far more than “bump-fire” stocks would be banned. Light-weight after-market bolts can increase the rate of fire, as can different replacement buffer springs. Likewise nicely polished and sensitive trigger groups.

Polishing the parts in the stock trigger group would be illegal.

Basically this Constitution-shredding Senator wants to redefine “machine gun” by how fast you can make something fire, rather than being designed to fire automatically as long as the trigger is depressed. Apparently Jerry Miculek is going to be outlawed.

We understand that other people are reacting in shock and grief to the horrible incident in Las Vegas. But if we are to ban every fun or useful thing that has ever been misused, we will have to eliminate microwave ovens, sandpaper, fire extinguishers, doctors, and senators, among many other things.

The Zelman Partisans opposes this, and any other legislation with similar Bill of Rights violating intent, on the grounds that it is both wrong and stupid. We urge Senator Feinstein — clearly in her dotage — to withdraw it and to retire in ignominy.

We urge anyone with a lick of sense to also oppose it.

Please contact your Senators and House Representative to voice your opposition.

We also note that the National Rifle Association has issued a statement in support of further regulating or banning fun stuff, saying, “devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.” We disagree, and urge principled members of the NRA to consider quitting and joining a real pro-RKBA organization.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

5 thoughts on “The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories.”

  1. Compromising Gottlieb’s SAF and CCRKBA has joined the NRA in calling for a “discussion.”

    “The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms support a productive dialogue concerning ‘bump stocks,’ National Concealed Carry Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act.”

    It sounds like the plan is to compromise away the definition of “machine gun” for maybe passing reciprocal carry and hearing protection. Why is it that these compromises always mean losing more means of expressing our rights?

    If he uses JPFO to back this, Aaron could return from the grave to tear the punk a new asshole, and pull him back through it.

  2. It is for reasons exactly like this that I withdrew from the NRA and no longer belong to any organizations. Does the NRA and all of the rest of these supposed gun supporters fail to understand that while they can give this little inch, the next Vegas or Newtown event will happen, as it must in such a country as large as ours, and they will once again have their backs against the wall, being pushed for ” Just one more commonsense law”. After all, if it only saves one life, it is worth it. I am certain that some of the gun rights activists are actually brain dead. I am for the most part someone who watches, reads, and learns, and can only be a little active in the movement, while there are those who are the movers and shakers at the top who seem to be trying to move the gun rights of the people back to the Bill Clinton era. I joined the NRA immediately after Obama was elected, thinking that I was doing something important. I learned after a couple of years that the things the NRA did right, they did very well, such as the Eddie Eagle programs. But the things that they did wrong, they did very, very wrong, such as making strange bedfellows with many gun banner groups. Supporting no fly lists as no gun buy lists? That is just one of their blunders, there are others. And now, this one. If they continue on this path, they will become completely irrelevant.

    1. The NRA has been good at training (recent stories about the online stuff make wonder now, though). Other than that…

      The NRA is not a pro-RKBA organization. It does not exist to fight against gun control. It exists to raise money to “fight” gun control. Therefore, it needs gun control to reference in also those fundraising letters it mails out. Even if it means writing anti-gun legislation or killing pro-RKBA bills. (Gottlieb uses this M.O., too, naturally.)

      I learned that lesson back in the ’90s, and have been a harsh critic of the NRA ever since.

      The one “compromise” I offered was a division of labor: GOA would handle pro-RKBA political action, SAF would handle court cases, and the NRA would stick to training. Those are things each are good at. But somehow I don’t think LaPierre (who I had the good fortune to call out and insult in person at a GRPC) would accept the necessary pay cut.

  3. The NRA was once good at training. They pretty much burned their bridges with a significant percentage of their instructors last year with their arrogant CAI money-grab. In the past, I never seriously contemplated resigning my membership because I was an instructor, but that obstruction is now gone. However, my problem now is that resigning the NRA doesn’t send a clear message. Am I resigning the NRA because I am outraged over the misuse of guns in Vegas, or am I resigning because I am outraged that their leadership are surrendering my rights for me in my name? I can tell you how the media will protray any significant dip in NRA membership, and it won’t be the latter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *