Tag Archives: Semiautomatic

Welcome to the party, pal

Gun Owners of America finally notices the semiauto problem with bump-fire bans, and the crowd — finally — goes wild.

Let me tell you about a little-known pro-RKBA group. While GOA ignored this until a couple of weeks ago (when I started getting fundraising emails mentioning bump-fire stocks), and the National Restrictions Rifle Association actively pushed for it, The Zelman Partisans has been trying to warn you.

For months.

  • The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories. (October 5, 2017)
    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.
  • Training Wheels (October 25, 2017)
    That is incorrect. An automatic weapon — a machinegun — is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks don’t make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts.
  • The fix is in: proposed rulemaking on bump-fire
    Instead of looking at mechanical function, and simple physics, in this document the ATF has adopted the media and gun controller definition of “if it’s fast, it must be a machinegun.” The intent is preordained regardless of comments.
  • Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices. (December 29, 2017)
    Considering bump-fire stocks, and other accessories, to be machineguns would not simply regulate a physical device. It effectively outlaws the bump-fire TECHNIQUE, and even pulling the trigger faster than some arbitrary threshold.
  • That’ll be our first one-term president in a while (February 20, 2018)
    I wish I could be surprised, but even before Trump began to look like a serious candidate– well before he got the R nomination — I warned that his new-found verbal respect for RKBA was belied by a long anti-RKBA history.
  • “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”* (February 26, 2018)
    “Machinegun” is defined in statutory law. Short form: a firearm that fires more than one round per trigger operation.If that can be changed by executive order, instead of congressional legislation, then everything is a machinegun waiting for the pen-stroke.What can he — would he — do with that pen?
  • Screw Physical Reality (March 10, 2018)
    If words having meaning, this is impossible without making every semiautomatic firearm an NFA item. Please note that this redefines machinegun without offering any grace period or grandfathering for existing gear.
  • Bump-fire Banned (March 23, 2018)
    And yes; The Zelman Partisans opposes this. Accepting this is in no way a compromise. We did not get reciprocal carry. We did get a dangerous Fix NICS. And this isn’t a merely bump-fire ban; it’s effectively a ban on semiautomatic firearms (and if you think Feinstein, Schumer et al aren’t aware of that, you weren’t paying attention): parts is parts.
  • Bumping Off the Truth (March 25, 2018)
    As noted on Friday, President Trump and AG Sessions announced a coming ban of bump-fire stocks (“bump-stock-type devices,” as the rule notice so eloquently puts it); no grandfathering, get rid of it or go to prison for possession of an unregistered NFA item.
  • Theoretically Speaking (March 28, 2018)
    In every case, bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks and “Multi-burst Trigger Activators”) are bad merely because they assist the shooter in approaching the firearm’s inherent theoretical maximum rate of fire. The semiautomatic rate of fire is the problem.Take away the bump-fire stock, crank, or multi-burp shoulder thingy, and the evil — to the gun ban bunnies — rate of fire remains.
    Does anyone reading this honestly doubt that establishing the precedent of the theoretical rate of fire being the problem is exactly what they want?
  • “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (sic) Commenting Now Open (March 29, 2018)
    The NPRM falsely states: “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”
  • Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms (April 2, 2018)
    If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)

That’s a partial listing. You can find more.

You know what else “increases” the rate of fire? The breechloading Ferguson Rifle. Pre-measured paper cartridges. Revolvers. Bolt/lever action rifles with magazines. Slicked bolts and polished trigger groups. New springs.

Anything that improves the action.

Might I suggest joining the one pro-RKBA group that has consistently warned of, and opposed, these bans other others ignored, under-stated, or even supported them?



Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms

Some people wonder why I worry about the Trump administration’s move to ban bump-fire stocks (“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” BSTD). After all, they aren’t really useful for anything practical. They’re inaccurate, unstable. Why we’d be…

“ft”: “Bottom line, our country would be better off without Bump stocks or the really stupid trigger cranks.”

“Better off.”

If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)

The NC sheriff candidate, who was criticized for his “cold, dead hands” joke remark (why the assumption that he was joking?), stated earlier in that meeting that he wants to ban anything that allows any firearm to “fire in rapid succession.” That’s what this proposed rule allows, too.

“I think we need to ban the sale of any mechanism that will allow a firearm to fire in rapid succession. And the reason why that’s the terminology that we need to use in our statutes is somebody out there is going to be able to develop some mechanism of some kind that is going to be able to fire in rapid succession.” (emphasis added-cb)
— R. Daryl Fisher, March 7, 2018

Anyone know why paper cartridges for muzzleloaders were invented? Pouring powder, and patching and ramming a ball are slow. Using a cartridge increased “rate of fire.”

Remember the British — Revolutionary War period!Ferguson rifle? As a self-priming breechloader, it greatly increased… rate of fire.

Minié ball? Easy to load; increased rate of fire.

In short, this NPRM, and the intent of the gun controllers, is a camouflaged ban on semiautomatic firearms. Doubt it? Read the NPRM language, and ask yourself how “President Hillary Clinton” would read and apply the rule.

Still doubt that “rate of fire” criteria is what the victim disarmers have in mind?

Some useful criteria
In the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock used guns that had a rate of fire of 9 rounds per second and magazines holding 60-100 rounds each. With these weapons, Paddock was able to kill dozens and wound hundreds in minutes. If the devastation Paddock caused with his weapons is equivalent to what he could have caused with M16s or M4s, then the weapons he used should be banned from civilian use. This is why I believe using rate of fire and magazine capacity are the most useful criteria for identifying what weapons are or are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (emphasis added-cb)

Well, any magazine with a capacity greater than one is going to increase “rate of fire” over a single-shot. Or a musket.

“Rate of fire” is the new tactic from the gun grabber playbook to ban semiautomatic firearms. After all, what duck hunter needs anything but a double-barrel (apparently muzzleloaded) shiotgun> What deer hunter needs more than Granpa’s old bolt-action musket?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail