Well, we knew this was coming. Barely had the echo of the gavel banging in the Supreme Court died down after the Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Trump-era bump stock ban supported by Biden’s Justice Department, than a Democratic move in the Senate supported by anti-gun overlord Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to pass legislation that would outlaw the controversial firearms accessory.
CBS News reports the attempt to pass the legislation was spearheaded by Sen. Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, who sought to bring his bill to a vote through unanimous consent, a procedure that allows measures to pass as long as no lawmaker objects. Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Republican from Nebraska, stepped in to block the measure, citing concerns over broader implications for gun rights.
Heinrich argued on the Senate floor that there is “no legitimate use for a bump stock,” equating bump stock-equipped semi-automatic rifles to machine guns, which have been banned for nearly a century. He urged Congress to act based on the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Ricketts, in his objection, labeled the bill as part of a “Democrat summer of show votes” and claimed that it aimed to ban a wide range of firearm accessories, not just bump stocks.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, put down his Father’s Day spatula long enough to criticize Senate Republicans who opposed the ban, recalling their previous support when the Trump administration sought to outlaw bump stocks. Schumer described the ban as “common sense,” a favoite buzzword among anti-gun politicians, which means it rarely ever is anything close to common sense, and then pointed to the one crime where a bump stock was known to be used, albeit a huge one, as he referenced the 2017 Las Vegas shootin
Just last week, the Supreme Court ruled the ATF overstepped its authority with the ban. The court highlighted the technical difference between semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks and machine guns, as the former still require the trigger to be released and reengaged for each shot, unlike the continuous fire of a machine gun.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in the majority opinion, underscored this distinction, stating that a bump stock does not transform a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a fast trigger finger does. Justice Samuel Alito, while concurring with the decision, suggested that Congress could address the issue through legislation.
Following the Supreme Court decision, President Biden called on Congress to pass a ban on bump stocks, expressing his commitment to sign such a bill into law.
No doubt, the debate over bump stocks will continue to rage on in the halls of Congress as the argument over whether they should be allowed or not is far from over.
Good shouldn’t give them anything to begin with but if they absolutely have to have this nonsense they can pay for it on our terms.
Now work on repealing the NFA (all of it) full auto is your birthright.
“Now work on repealing the NFA…”
Read LKB’s comment on SNW a day or so back to see why that’s not likely to happen…
Hmm… I wonder what else this world has “no legitimate use” for?
Furthermore, I wonder who gets to determine what is and is not “legitimate.”
According to our political ‘masters’ they do.
“I wonder what else this world has “no legitimate use” for?”
Democrat Senators and quite a few Repukes also.
A bump stock can be used to illustrate the sound of low rates of automatic fire and to a degree show the inaccuracy of automatic fire. That is a legitimate training use. If you do not wish to be trained in important matters, best of luck to you. The best examples are Rangers, who carry all the ammo they can and fire them one at a time.
Brother Grimm,
All of your points are valid. Having said that, I can think of a totally valid application of “inaccurate” high rates of fire. (How the operator achieves high rates of fire–with a full automatic machine gun or a semi-automatic rifle and some form of mechanical assistance–is not important). And that application is when a large number of attackers are overrunning your position.
If 20 attackers are within 20 feet and rushing me, I don’t need the pin-point accuracy of carefully aimed semi-automatic fire. Instead, I need the highest rate of fire that I can get and even “sloppy” accuracy which could come with high rates of fire will be good enough to stop (or at least slow down) those 20 attackers. Note that this application could easily apply to even just a few attackers rushing you at close range.
Last but not least, high rates of fire could be very important when trying to stop a fast attacking animal or even culling a heard of animals (such as a sounder of feral hogs).
Machine guns haven’t been banned for nearly a century. The federal ban on “new” machine guns took effect May 19, 1986. Those on the registry on that date which were “transferable” to individuals can still be transferred. That’s why a M16 costs 30-40k instead of $600-800. There was a ban on imported machine guns for civilians which was part of the 1968 GCA which also allowed the only ever amnesty to register un-registered machine guns and other NFA weapons. The amnesty was 30 days of December 1968. It was a total amnesty so even convicted felons could register a duffel bag MP40. The 1934 National Firearms Act didn’t ban machine guns, it just taxed them out of existence for the average Joe. The $200 tax was very expensive considering the average price of a new car, Model A Ford, was $500. Numerous states ban machine guns like CA and NY so even if you have the $$$$ and no criminal record you are still SOL.
I believe there is a movement to eliminate the $200 tax.
Opportunity to suggest something useful in exchange such as the Hearing Protection Act to see how much Democrats truly want to ban those evil bump stocks. Of course they won’t go for it, but it would clearly expose their unwillingness to compromise.
100% What occurred to me as well. The constant eroding of the 2nd Amendment needs to end. If there is bipartisan support for the banning of bump-stocks, give us something (or things) in return. Such as repealing the Suppressor and SBR Tax’s and Registration. Otherwise No Deal!
I applaud the SCOTUS on their ruling, and also see a potential opportunity for compromise. Unfortunately, “compromise” to a Democrat anti-gunner means slightly relenting in whatever heinous legislation they want to stick to us. If an actual compromise included a bump stock (and ONLY bump stock) ban, coupled with removal of SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, that would be worthwhile discussing.
Hey! Republicans! If you want to impress us, repeal the NFA!
Well duh.
Next up, attempting to ban semiautomatic weapons.
A government that fears an armed populace?
on your hands and on your knees We(.giv) Have Control
Step up and smell the Bullshit the Democrats are selling. They want to ignore ALL the other things in the bill and just push for the Bump stocks. People Wake up!
Dempublicans or Republicrats.
Head games, one against the other, using excuses.
Neither party honors the The Republic or the oath they took to defend its Constitution.
Not what they do it is what you do, straddling the fence ho-hum doesn’t cut it.
There is no legitimate use for a democrat…
“There is no legitimate use for a democrat…”
I bring to mind a classic ‘Beavis and Butt-head’ comedy bit to ponder :
Beavis – “Why do we have things that suck? Why can’t everything be cool?”
Butt-head – “We must have things that suck, how else will we know what is cool?”
Deep wisdom, indeed… 😉
I have no use for democRats.
TRUMP 2024.
Of course the moron in the White House supports this kind of legislation, even though we know he hasn’t a clue what a bump stock is. He probably thinks it is a type of financial investment.
This ruling really wasn’t about guns or bump stocks. This ruling was about preventing federal agencies from making up their own laws or “rules” whenever they want. The Court correctly upheld that only Congress can make federal laws. Prior to this the EPA could classify your seasonal muddy puddle in your lawn as a “wetland”. This decision will have a huge impact on everything from fixing/tuning your car to fishing quotas in AK. The anti gun movement knows this and I’m sure they will now try to ram a bump stock ban through Congress.
“Prior to this the EPA could classify your seasonal muddy puddle in your lawn as a “wetland”.”
That actually happened to the person that bought my Father in Law’s property in Northern California. A tree fell blocking a drainage pipe under the main access road to the property causing a mini swamp covering the road. The new owner asked the city to remove the tree as it was their responsibility. It was a tree on city property that fell on to private property. The city came out and surveyed the damage and seeing the newly formed “Wetlands” they got the EPA involved. From there it became a total Cluster… New owner ended up building a new access road and drainage pipe underneath at his own expense. Fuck alphabet agencies.
“Prior to this the EPA could classify your seasonal muddy puddle in your lawn as a “wetland”.”
That actually happened to the person that bought my Father in Law’s property in Northern California. A tree fell blocking a drainage pipe under the main access road to the property causing a mini swamp covering the road. The new owner asked the city to remove the tree as it was their responsibility. It was a tree on city property that fell on to private property. The city came out and surveyed the damage and seeing the newly formed “Wetlands” they got the EPA involved. From there it became a total Cluster… New owner ended up building a new access road and drainage pipe underneath at his own expense. Edited because for some reason I can say eff word on my phone but not my laptop.
“Prior to this the EPA could classify your seasonal muddy puddle in your lawn as a “wetland”.”
That actually happened to the person that bought my Father in Law’s property in Northern California. A tree fell blocking a drainage pipe under the main access road to the property causing a mini swamp covering the road. The new owner asked the city to remove the tree as it was their responsibility. It was a tree on city property that fell on to private property. The city came out and surveyed the damage and seeing the newly formed “Wetlands” they got the EPA involved. From there it became a total Cluster… New owner ended up building a new access road and drainage pipe underneath at his own expense.
This, they never ruled bump stocks were legal just that Trump and the BATF over stepped their bounds by banning them via EO instead of Congress.
That being said I hope the Republicans actually stand up for something and they do not allow a ban to pass.
If I may, it’s not the device that’s the problem. It’s the human agent that improperly or illegally uses the thing. Let’s recognize the very significant difference between up and down, for a change.
I watch Mr. Miculek vs a bump stock yesterday. Maybe Congress is going to ban his finger after watching that video. The man is fast.
Comments are closed.