Short interview with bump stock creator

[Savago]

Just saw it today and though was interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HHflTANB0s

The guy who created and patented bump stocks seems like a fine fellow. I'm curious what the SCOTUS will decide on the subject.

[Serk]

All gun laws are infringements.

[Savago]

@Serk: I have the tendency to agree, as I have to live with the draconian & stupid Cali gun law everyday.

But what is at stake in the SCOTUS case is the fact that the ATF 'made law' by banning bump stocks, which should be the power of congress.

I'm really interested to see what the SCOTUS will decide.
:-)

[Serk]

Yup... Should be self evident an agency can't change laws...

Or make an item that was fully legal and purchased legally suddenly illegal, and done with no compensation whatsoever.

[Jess from VA]

I have not studied this issue closely.  I hadn't heard anything about bump stockst for some time.

I always stand with person freedom and the 2d Amendment.

The legal issue may be whether bump stocks in operation become so similar to fully automatic weapons that they may be lawfully subsumed within and governed by the 1934 National Firearms Act (and others since then) regulating machine guns.  As enforced by BATF.

Of course I believe that all that legislation is unconstitutional as man portable machine guns are in fact small arms and covered and protected by the 2d Amendment.  But so far that has never been so ruled by SCOTUS.  We can't have tanks and nukes and subs and artillery, but we are guaranteed no infringement on all small arms.

My interest in bumps stocks is purely the legal issue.  I believe I'm better served by a semiauto with good sights/lights/lasers and individually aimed fire.  But I would own a subgun if I could afford one and I did not have to be federally licensed and documented on a list held by BATF and my state of residence.  And subject to the rules of inspection, search and seizure and record-keeping applied to them.

[Serk]

Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” 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.

Nothing about a bump stock changes what a single function of the trigger does on a semi automatic firearm.

[RP#62]

-RP

[Jess from VA]

Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” 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.

Nothing about a bump stock changes what a single function of the trigger does on a semi automatic firearm.

Ah yes, it's coming back to me now.  It's been a while since this was being discussed (and I was reading).