Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Porn | Home | Pull the other one » »

I doubt it will pass in this form

Bump Stock Ban Retroactively Criminalizes Possession of Legally Acquired Products

But I think something will pass. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are going on about it and NRA has waved the white flag.

I think bumpstocks are dumb. You’re not really shooting accurately and they mostly make noise. I don’t think they should be banned. And if I found one on the cheap, I’d buy it for a few reasons. First, if someone wanted to challenge a law that said turn them in, I’d be able to give them “standing”. Second, if a version passes that grandfathers the ones out there, they would go up in value a whole lot. Third, it makes statists and leftists cry.

19 Responses to “I doubt it will pass in this form”

  1. JTC Says:

    NRA didn’t call “surrender”, they called “charge!”. Strategically and in consort with DJT and with a quid pro quo, but with no quo I think, because the junk can’t be banned because it can’t be defined…where have we heard that before?

    Oh, and as far as quick-buck opportunism, that ship done sailed, take a look at GB. Ijits.

  2. HL Says:

    I never wanted one until they started talking about the “B” word.

    Hopefully the boys as Slide Fire make a mint before they are ban-hammered into oblivion.

  3. Ravenwood Says:


    Sources tell me that the ATF has already shut down Slidefire. Their website says they’re not taking new orders and are busy fulfilling old orders, but I think the reality is that the ATF shut them down pending a review.

  4. BlueFalcon in Boston Says:

    MA is about to ban & criminalise them today without any public hearings, notice, or regular legislative process via energency amendments to a budget bill. This is SAFE Act style dead of night 3rd World type lawlessness.

  5. rickn8or Says:

    Blue Falcon in Boston, Attorney General Maura Healey smiling in approval. (But we already knew that…)

  6. Old Windways Says:

    @BlueFalcon I got the alert about this yesterday afternoon. Called my state Senator this morning, told the aid that he should in no uncertain terms vote against any bill with the poorly written “bump-fire ban” attached. Hope they manage to at least slow this down a little, but I’m not super confident.

  7. BlueFalcon in Boston Says:

    It’s looking like some sense (Helk froze over in the MA Senate) might prevail and bumpfire/cranks as well defined terms would be moved under the state’s MG license rather than banned and no ex post facto prosecution or takings. No vague expansive ban everything language either in the amended version. Looks like our calls sorr of worked today.

  8. Blue Falcon in Boston Says:

    SECTION X: Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by inserting after the words “submachine gun” the following:-
    “The term machine gun shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.”
    SECTION Y. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by inserting the following new definitions:-
    “Bump stock” any device for a semiautomatic firearm that increases the rate of fire achievable with such firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.
    “Trigger Crank” any device to be attached to a semi-automatic firearm that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion, but does not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.
    SECTION Z. The executive office of public safety and security shall notify any individual licensed under chapter 140 of changes made under section X and the effective date of those changes. The executive office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks of changes made under section X and the effective date of those changes.
    SECTION XX. Section X shall take effect 90 days after the passage of this act; but it shall be unlawful to purchase, sell, or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank in violation of chapter 140 of the General Laws after the effective date of this act.

  9. rickn8or Says:

    Blue Falcon, maybe the Governor won’t sign it.

  10. Fred Says:


    “immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law,” the N.R.A. said in a statement released Thursday. “The N.R.A. believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

    That’s some pretty sneaky 3D chess moves right there. Pfft. The NRA is Gun Control.

  11. Blue Falcon in Boston Says:

    Governor Baker is a never touched a gun in his life country club Rino that happily plays a scapegoat and beaten dog for the (D) super-majority. He will sign it in a heartbeat.

    Unfortunately I didn’t read the rest of the existing statute, which does carry a hefty criminal penalty for possession without a license of a MG, which these items are to be classified as. So there is a criminalization of existing ownership which constitutes a taking without compensation.

  12. rickn8or Says:

    Fred, the Gun Control lobby needs a Boogeyman to promote their agenda. The NRA gladly provides this service and charges its members for doing so.

  13. JTC Says:

    Fred, pre-emptory statement to deflect and misdirect incoming fire, with full knowledge that as the man says, what are they going to do, ban fingers?

    These specific branded junk accessories might go out of production but the broad language is intentionally nebulous and unenforceable.

    And with preplan to fast-track safety devices this is indeed a check move. Checkmate to come. IMO.

  14. rickn8or Says:

    JTC, the “unenforceable” part doesn’t bother me; giving the ATF a blank check does.

  15. JTC Says:

    rickn8or, recall that this is the Trump ATF not Obama’s.

    And reference one of DT’s first EO’s to the effect that any new piece of legislation must be accompanied by two pieces being 86’d. I think under this scenario the same applies to regulations. We’ll see how it plays in flyover country.

  16. Ron W Says:

    Retroactive criminalization of a previously legal thing is a violation of the Constitutional BAN on “ex post facto laws”.

  17. Jonathan Says:

    “rickn8or, recall that this is the Trump ATF not Obama’s.”

    You mean the same Trump who supported arbitrarily denying rights to people unjustly placed on secret lists without benefit of due process or trial?


    Good luck with that.

  18. Ron W Says:

    “So there is a criminalization of existing ownership which constitutes a taking without compensation.” –Blue Falcon in Boston

    Yes, So as long as they give you a little time and compensate you something, confiscation is supposedly OK. THAT’s why Hillary Clinton and now others, are saying we need “Australian-style” mandatory gun buyback…never mind Article I, Section 9.3 against “ex post facto laws” or the Bill of Rights. They’ll be quite happy to pay out more government money to violate the law, vilify and criminalize those who can’t be bought to give up their tights.

  19. JTC Says:


    I like your graphic representations.

    Got any on the effects of Trump’s “support” of secret lists vs. before 11/16?

    How about on the effects on new gun laws/regs under him?