AR Bump Fire Stock

[Iraqgunz]

Federal definition- Federal law defines a machine gun as “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. ”

As far as I know since their contraption doesn't meet the definition so it isn't a machine gun. So unless the definition is changed it is legal.

The reason you can't buy them over the counter is simply because you have to wait for the tax stamp. Otherwise it is just like purchasing any other firearm. I have several NFA items at the house and the procedure for SBR's, suppressors, SBS and machine guns is exactly the same.

Originally Posted by kgoerz

point being you cant buy them over the counter like you can a Semi.

[JJ_BPK]

Bump Firing a weapon is old hat and it is not illegal. There have been many contraptions make to allow one to simulate full auto fire. this is just another version, that happens to work with an AR style rifle.

YouTube has a pile of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOnOlLM9EYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xMiPE529M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3y2Cp0pKwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbAdOpUghw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC6cAmoWCZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ahCljuHt6w

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

Federal definition- Federal law defines a machine gun as “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. ”

As far as I know since their contraption doesn't meet the definition so it isn't a machine gun. So unless the definition is changed it is legal.

The reason you can't buy them over the counter is simply because you have to wait for the tax stamp. Otherwise it is just like purchasing any other firearm. I have several NFA items at the house and the procedure for SBR's, suppressors, SBS and machine guns is exactly the same.

Well, except your local CLEO doesn't normally get a vote in whether you can own the non-Class III stuff.

And you do not have to submit fingerprints, Form 4s, wait months for ATF approval, etc., etc. to get regular firearms.

TR

[Iraqgunz]

I concede that yes there is a wait involved. But, you can also avoid the CLEO non-sense by setting up a Revocable Trust. I have one and it makes the process much simpler.

Also, in some states California being one- you have a ridiculous waiting period (10 business days) magazine restrictions (NY, NJ, MD, CA, HI) etc....

I guess my point is that the Bumpfire stock is gay and a waste of money, but it doesn't (yet) fall into the category of a machine gun.

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Well, except your local CLEO doesn't normally get a vote in whether you can own the non-Class III stuff.

And you do not have to submit fingerprints, Form 4s, wait months for ATF approval, etc., etc. to get regular firearms.

TR

[45K40]

I concur on "the Bumpfire stock is gay and a waste of money". Bumpfiring is also a dangerous practice. Bumpfiring has different schemes or devices, but essentially allows the semi-auto weapon to shift back, preventing the bolt carrier group and fire control group from searing correctly . Where it gets scary is if the hammer follows thru, it can hold the firing pin forward. This may allow the primer to fire before the bolt locks (out-of-battery firing). Unlike advanced primer ignition (Uzi, for example) on a sub-gun, this is not safe for locking bolt systems. This is the reason for the disconnector in Full Auto weapons, to keep it from firing out of battery. YMMV, but I don't advise bump-firing. A $200 tax stamp is forever and a lot cheaper than wrecking a weapon or yourself,

45K40

[Iraqgunz]

An M16 or AR cannot fire out of battery for the simple fact that the firing pin cannot protrude forward enough unless the bolt is locked into the chamber. I have seen cutaway diagrams that clearly depict this. With other designs I am sure that it can happen.

Originally Posted by 45K40

I concur on "the Bumpfire stock is gay and a waste of money". Bumpfiring is also a dangerous practice. Bumpfiring has different schemes or devices, but essentially allows the semi-auto weapon to shift back, preventing the bolt carrier group and fire control group from searing correctly . Where it gets scary is if the hammer follows thru, it can hold the firing pin forward. This may allow the primer to fire before the bolt locks (out-of-battery firing). Unlike advanced primer ignition (Uzi, for example) on a sub-gun, this is not safe for locking bolt systems. This is the reason for the disconnector in Full Auto weapons, to keep it from firing out of battery. YMMV, but I don't advise bump-firing. A $200 tax stamp is forever and a lot cheaper than wrecking a weapon or yourself,

45K40

[35NCO]

Coming from the Class III community, I would never even want to be around one. As TR pointed out it draws some serious unwanted attention. If you have a Registered Machine Gun, you at least have all your “papers” to show the curious or pissed off LEO. This stock reminds me of the Akins accelerator for the 10/22 which was at one time legal, with a BATFE letter, and then overnight the ATF made them all illegal and you had to either send them your springs, or destroy it. So yes, it is a “technical loophole”, however, it is whatever the BATFE says it is and that can change with the drop of a hat. People have been prosecuted for less.

Article on Akins Accelerator: Full of anti-gun rants...

http://beta2.tbo.com/business/consum...uin-ar-176333/

Youtube Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8AbTKvykE

[mojaveman]

Bump firing is a cheap thrill.

What happened to the good 'ol days when one could go to a gunshow, buy an AR-15, an M-16 parts kit, and also the manual that explained how to put it all together.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just saw this, IMO it's a bad idea. If James Holmes had used something like this, the media would have said he had an automatic fire weapon. Second Amendment owners are adequate about there being regulations tha make semi-automatic firearms difficult to convert into automatic-fire capability and any firearm that can easily be converted is considered an automatic weapon.

This type of gizmo undoes that whole argument. IMO there's two ways to define automatic fire:

1) The conventional definition of a semi-auto versus full-auto gun

2) A gun that can fire bullets in rapid succession

This fits number two. That it "technically" is a semi-auto that has a few modifications to let the trigger be pulled very quickly to simulate full-auto I think is inviting too much trouble for the gun community. The way the media will portray it is that it's an automatic fire weapon that only exists due to a loophole in the law (which is probably to a good degree true). Gun companies that create such a product I think are setting the industry up for more hurt then help when someone like a James Holmes decides to get one of these and start shooting up a crowd somewhere.

As 35NCO pointed the BATFE defines and/or approves what is and isn't a automatic firearm....sometimes through rigorous testing procedures.

With that in mind, I believe it is the BATFE who is setting up the industry for a big hurt and not the makers of gizmo's.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just saw this, IMO it's a bad idea. If James Holmes had used something like this, the media would have said he had an automatic fire weapon. Second Amendment owners are adequate about there being regulations tha make semi-automatic firearms difficult to convert into automatic-fire capability and any firearm that can easily be converted is considered an automatic weapon.

This type of gizmo undoes that whole argument. IMO there's two ways to define automatic fire:

1) The conventional definition of a semi-auto versus full-auto gun

2) A gun that can fire bullets in rapid succession

This fits number two. That it "technically" is a semi-auto that has a few modifications to let the trigger be pulled very quickly to simulate full-auto I think is inviting too much trouble for the gun community. The way the media will portray it is that it's an automatic fire weapon that only exists due to a loophole in the law (which is probably to a good degree true). Gun companies that create such a product I think are setting the industry up for more hurt then help when someone like a James Holmes decides to get one of these and start shooting up a crowd somewhere.

Do you have the experience to tell us that you think he would have hit more people on full-auto with a bump stock than with aimed semi-auto fire?

Too late for the media. Every shooting involving a semi-auto of any description is immediately an automatic weapon, a fully automatic weapon, or a machinegun.

And pretty much any semi-auto rifle, other than an AK-47, is called an AK-47.

TR

[mojaveman]

Who needs an inexpensive plastic bump fire device anyway. I went shooting with one of the youngsters at work and he just grabbed his belt with his hand and stuck his right thumb out. He thern held the forestock lightly and proceeded to empty a ten round magazine in one long burst. We were out in the hills away from any houses so weren't to worried about the sound.

He told me that he learned how to do that with his AK by watching a few videos on Youtube.

[35NCO]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

No Sir, and that is not what I am claiming, sorry if I gave that impression. My point is that I think it adds fuel to the fire, if you will. If gun owners are going to argue that the Second Amendment should cover automatic fire weapons, then okay, but this product undermines all the claims about automatic fire weapons being illegal and difficult to obtain.

As much as I would rather watch and listen, then speak, I think in this case you are too far off base on your assumption. Correct me if I am reading you wrong, but it sounds to me, as if you have doubts that the 2nd amendment covered "military weapons"?

You also seem to believe that bump firing somehow makes a more lethal weapon than a semi-auto?

If your argument is that the MSM would see a bumpfire weapon and call it a "Machine Gun", I can agree with that assumption. They will call anything scary to them a machine gun. Just like how they call all pistols Glocks, and any magazine high capacity. Its jejune opinions that they carry, they don't care about what the current laws say. They certainly do not care about facts either.

Now respectfully, I see you live in NY. I will make the observation as well, based off reading your posts, that you have been substantially misinformed about firearm definitions and current laws.

The truth about all this gun control talk is already very clearly laid out. Every weapon in our country is very clearly defined legally. Some descriptions are more vague than others, but the point is that the feds have already very thoroughly, made gun laws, reviewed them, and amended them as they see fit. They have done this meticulously since the founding of our country.

If you should find the time, I highly recommend you read the following, or at least review them. If you still hold the same opinions, you are entitled to that opinion. I just would rather you have a firmer base of understanding before making such statements of influence from misinformation.

1. What did our founding fathers speak of firearms in the Federalist Papers? What was the real general opinion? The 2nd amendment was the statement, the founding fathers already made what the statement meant crystal clear.

2. National Firearms Act of 1934, as well, changes, amendments and rulings since. There are many. Perhaps review the history of the law too. Did you know the BATFE maintains a list of all legal machine guns in the country and all NFA weapons defined in the NFA?

3. The Gun Control Act. Did you know we once tried regulating ammo? Have you heard of the 1968 machine gun amnesty?

4. The Firearms Owners Protection Act, with the addition of the Hughes amendment. (which arguably was never legally passed) The Hughes amendment made some epic changes to how machine guns are now handled in the US. Did you know previous to 1986 anyone whom could legally own a firearm, could legally submit paperwork to the ATF to make a machine gun at home?

5. How the Brady Campaign got the NICS check. What or rather whom, does the NICS check? What does the NICS check look for? Did you know that currently it also checks people against terrorist watch lists?

6. Finally, and far more complex to all the layers previous, State Laws. States also do their own checks, own laws and regulations, and waiting periods.

One more fact, in the entire history of civilians owning legally registered machine guns, (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, cannons, etc) since the NFA was passed, only two crimes have ever been committed by legal owners. One of which was a police officer whom bought a Mac-10 and killed a witness to a case. Not trying to upset the police on this board but it is true. The point though, is not that it was a LEO. The point is that law abiding citizens statistically in the case of NFA, are law abiding citizens. The process works to keep the "bad and evil things" out of the hands of "criminals".

If you are wondering why people can even still own machine guns among other "scary things", the reason is that these days, they hold a unbelievable value. Some particular machine guns are worth more than a thousand times its weight in gold(IE Lightning Links selling for $22000). Which in turn, has some very elite, very wealthy people in control of the market. Those same rich elite people influence the elections. IE, the fate of the politicians whom voted for the last "assault weapons ban".

I hope the information above helps you to be better informed of your opinions. If I am wrong about any of the above, please correct me.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Your bottom paragraph there. I think a bump-fire product gives unnecessary ammunition (for lack of a better word) to the gun control zealots.

I think you are mis-understanding me a good bit here. I am NOT arguing that the word "arms" in the Second Amendment did not mean military weapons. But back then, military weapons were muskets and cannons and a few types of handguns for the most part. Things like battle tanks, attack helicopters, fighter planes, NBC weapons, etc...none of them existed yet. As such, due to all the new weapons technology since then, we've had to give a definition to what the word "arms" means. Legally, as a society, we have decided that machine guns, which under the law includes assault rifles, are not covered under the word arms in the Second Amendment. I'm not saying that's right, but that's how it is right now.

Regarding my being in New York, well regardless of where I live, I don't let that affect my political opinions, but I happen to live in upstate, NY in one of the most conservative districts in the state

"Arms" to the Fathers, meant all weapons of military application and included the most dangerous weapons of the day, cannons. Further, men of means could raise their own units and equip them as they saw fit.

IMHO, the Founding Fathers of this country would come much closer to understanding machine guns and small arms of all types than they would TVs, cable, satellites, computers, the internet, etc.

Please show me where we have decided that automatic weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. I may have missed that news flash. All I am aware of is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the Federal government may tax NFA items, and the basis for that back in 1934 was very shaky, legally. The 1986 FOPA restricted manufacture of new automatic weapons for private ownership, but did nothing to outlaw the transfer and possession of existing weapons.

Machine guns are not assault weapons, though by the real definition, an assault weapon must be capable of fully automatic fire. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but an M-16 is.

A bump fire stock is manually operated, just like a hand crank. Jerry Miculek's finger is faster than either of those. Any device that would permit the firing of multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger would be restricted by the NFA.

The BATF has demonstrated the power of semi-autos repeatedly in the past by using full-auto weapons. The media laps that shite up and coos about how dangerous these weapons are spraying bullets all over the place and killing dozens of people. Truth is that one marksman with a 100 year old rifle at any real distance could kill more people than five gangsters with full-auto AKs. And a tractor trailer or a tank of gasoline could kill even more. Who knew unarmed planes were capable of bringing down huge structures before 9/11?

You may want to do some more research before posting your opinions as facts.

TR

[Destrier]

"The shooter used a device called a bump fire stock, a device that easily allows one to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun..." I mean the media would lap it up and so would all the gun control types.[/QUOTE]



Because I do not live my life based on what if's the media might say or not say. Your worry about anti gun nuts and the media is about pointless, they already wing out mindlessly regardless of whether their facts are correct or not. Should the 2nd amendment be needed for such purpose as to overthrow a tyrannical Government, there will be no doubt what 'arms' means.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

why create a device that just helps add fuel to the fire?

Why create Mortgage Back Securities?

Entrepreneurship? Capitalism? Wealth creation? Jobs? Freedom of Choice?

Creating a device or vehicle and putting that device or vehicle on the market are two different things. I am not an inventor, but I would suspect the inventor had to put his creation through a lot of government red tape and legalese before even thinking about putting a for sale sign on it.

I guarantee you that more lives have and will be adversely affected by MBS than this bump fire toy, a EBR, a Pistol Grip or a Hi-Cap Mag.

The whole evil gun discussion is a folly when you consider that our ticking time bomb of a financial system and the mentally ill that run it have the potential to devastate millions and scorch the earth for future generations.