MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Your Bipartisan Bump Stock Ban Has Arrived

The bill, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, would ban much more than just bump stocks.

Rep. Carlos CurbeloDavid Santiago/TNS/NewscomThe bipartisan gun control measure we told you would follow the horrific shooting October 1 in Las Vegas was introduced Tuesday in the House by a Republican and a Democrat, with exactly 10 members of each party co-sponsoring.

The bill drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R–Fla.) and Seth Moulton (D– Mass.) intends to make illegal bump stocks or "any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle."

Binary triggers, which fires a round on both the pull and release of the trigger, would also likely be prohibited under this language, as would lighter triggers, and heavier recoil springs, both of which allow for a faster rate of fire.

What is shocking is just how broad the language of their bill is. The law promises to ban any part that increases the rate of fire from a semi-automatic weapon, meaning more than just bump stocks could be on the chopping block.

Curbelo said in a press release, "this common-sense legislation will ban devices that blatantly circumvent already existing law without restricting Second Amendment rights." The representative added that the bill was an "important first step to address gun violence."

It was also an important first step to getting member of the two major parties to agree with anything having to do with controlling guns. Prominent Republicans and Second Amendment advocates, including the National Rifle Association, got in line to make their peace with legislation following the tragic shooting that left at least 58 people dead and more than 515 wounded.

Investigators who found Stephen Paddock, dead in the Mandalay Bay hotel room where he did the shooting, found two dozen weapons, 12 of them rifles equipped with bump stocks—a device that uses recoil to increase the speed of firing a semi-automatic weapon.

Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), a gun owner, was the first conservative to announce he would support a ban. Several other Republican lawmakers followed suit, with many more expressing an openness to hold hearings on the matter.

As Reason has pointed out, bump stocks are easy targets for politicians looking to "do something" about gun violence, and it is not surprising that they would be the subject of Curbelo and Moulton's bill. Some gun enthusiasts and retailers considered them a novelty—little known about until the shooting—and one that detracts from the functionality of a weapon by sacrificing accuracy for the speed of firing.

With the issue of a weapon's rate of fire on the table, there is every reason to believe lawmakers might consider amendments to add to the ban extended magazines, reloading aids, or anything else that allows a shooter to get rounds off more quickly.

This is the slippery slope uncompromising libertarians and conservatives worried about and liberals hoped Congress would find itself negotiating. And even if it passes unanimously, the bill brings the nation no closer to preventing what happened in Las Vegas.

Photo Credit: David Santiago/TNS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • mashed potatoes||

    So belt loops will become illegal?

  • RickCaird||

    Showing, of course, that those writing the regulations have no understanding of the topic.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Binary triggers, which fires a round on both the pull and release of the trigger

    So if you pull the trigger, you're now committed to firing a second shot regardless of whether it's still safe to do so because you can't release the trigger without shooting again?

    That's a terrible idea.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, I have to agree. That sounds like a really dumb idea.

  • ||

    So if you pull the trigger, you're now committed to firing a second shot regardless of whether it's still safe to do so because you can't release the trigger without shooting again?

    That's a terrible idea.

    So, you're idea of a safe situation is one where you've picked up a weapon with a binary trigger, pointed it at a target, and depressed the trigger?

    Did Scotty beam you into this situation or did you black out and then wake up there? You want a terrible idea how about a double-barreled pump-action shotgun? As an added bonus, by design, you can't engage the safety mechanism after discharging a single barrel.

  • Jordan||

    Er, what? I've never had a situation go from safe to unsafe in the milliseconds it takes to release the trigger.

  • ||

    Stormy is such an incredible shot, he puts Barney Fife to shame.

    Nevermind that side-by-side and over-under shotguns have been used by game hunters for centuries specifically to facilitate followup shots and that we, after deploying automatic weapons for more than half a century, stick with 'burst fire' to achieve the same ends, Stormy's pretty sure it's a terrible idea.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    sidebyside and overunder shotguns don't turn the trigger into a deadman switch that has to be held to prevent the gun from firing.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    likewise, burst fire stops as soon as you release the trigger, it doesn't force you to take all three shots once the first is fired

  • BYODB||

    Perhaps if it was legal for someone to own a burst fire or auto-fire weapon without paying through the nose it wouldn't be necessary to come up with stupid solutions that mimic simpler mechanical solutions.

  • ||

    don't turn the trigger into a deadman switch
    ...
    burst fire stops as soon as you release the trigger

    What you say for 'as soon as you release the trigger' is true for the 'Stoner Mechanism'. It's more complicated for the current popular 'H&K mechanism'. However, burst fire is hardly new or achieved via a single mechanism.

    I mean, we could go into how letting off in the middle of the burst with the Stoner mechanism leaves you with a shorter burst while letting off (completely) with the H&K mechanism will do a full-reset and how that one or less extra round in the burst is a dangerously bad idea. However, I think you've made it perfectly clear that you're opposed to the firing mechanism pretty strictly and give few-to-no shits with anything having anything to actually do with rates of fire, expedient follow up shots, target neutralization and safety, expenditure of ammunition, etc.

    Sleep well at night knowing that the good guys always win because they have people like you.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'm opposed to the firing mechanism because it violates the third rule of gun safety.

  • ||

    You're opposed to the firing mechanism because you're a lying asshole.

    People violate the rules of gun safety not guns. Your point about 'rule 3' (and the assumption that we all know the same rule 3 as rule 3) only makes sense if you ignore the fact that you're violating pretty much all the other rules of gun safety.

    If you've got the gun pointed at a target and your finger on the trigger and you don't intend to destroy the target or are assuming the gun won't go off, it's not the gun's or the rule's fault you're a moron.

  • Blandly Urbane||

    Your reply is suitable for framing

  • el_doug||

    It is a terrible idea, which is why that's not how the trigger operates. Binary triggers have a three position selector switch. If you don't want to fire the second round after you've actuated the trigger, moving the selector switch to safe allows you to release the trigger without firing the second shot.

  • BYODB||

    It is kind of a dumb design, either way, but it's only a thing because the simpler thing it's meant to mimic is unobtainable by most people for a reasonable price.

  • ||

    It is a terrible idea, which is why that's not how the trigger operates.

    Even then, it's not that terrible an idea (especially if the safety can still be engaged or the hammer manipulated/released). If you're terrified of putting a second bullet into something, it's exceedingly likely you shouldn't put the first bullet there.

    It's a bit like saying sabot or slug rounds are OK, but buckshot is dangerous. Might as well go full retard and claim that double-barrel buckshot is full-on destructive device.

  • BambiB||

    The binary trigger is trinary.

  • PhilH||

    FYI, binary triggers have three safety settings: Safe (no fire), fire (single shot), and binary (single shot on pull and release).

  • Brendan||

    Keep the trigger held down and pull the charging handle back before releasing the trigger

  • HE_OFFICER||

    It's called a release trigger and has been used by shotgun shooters for years. A smart guy just figured out that if you engineer it into an AR15 you get pretty close to an M16, which has been banned, in contravention to the 2nd amendment, since 1986. This is a libertarian site right? I don't give a shit if anyone else thinks it's a good idea or not. If it's not hurting anyone else why should you care? It's exactly thinking like yours that got machine guns banned for the public in the first place. Your knee jerk response to something you don't really know about, but don't think you like.

  • SIV||

    uncompromising libertarians

    Or as your editors call them: racists

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Or as you call them: stalking victims.

  • chemjeff||

    Do I want to know what a "silkie" is?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's like a drowned horse spirit in Scandanavian folklore.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I thought it was more of a Scottish were-seal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Looks like it. Don't know what I was thinking of.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    My first thought was kelpies, but that's also Scottish. Wikipedia informs me that the Scandinavian version is called a bäckahäst.

  • ||

    In my world, silkies are a type of bantam chicken. This makes your question rather disturbing.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    What is shocking is just how broad the language of their bill is.

    Is it shocking, though? Broad language comes with built-in opportunities for future shenanigans AND it covers a lack of any real knowledge of the subject.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    And let's face it, having real knowledge of practical subjects pretty much precludes a successful career in politics.

  • Curt||

    Do we chalk this up to ignorance/incompetence or malice?

    There's a good chance that it never occurred to them that the language about things that speed up ROF would affect much more than just bump stocks. There's also a chance that it's intentionally broad (for differing reasons). Would it shock anyone if a democrat included this kind of language to maximize the amount of things that could be potentially banned? Would it shock anyone if a republican included this kind of language as a poison pill to ultimately tank the bill?

  • BambiB||

    So I'm wondering - does this law cover gun oil?

    A lubricated firing mechanism would almost certainly increase the speed of operation - perhaps only by nanoseconds, but by enough for some libtard nut-job left-wing asshole to claim it violates the law.

  • mr burns||

    This bill would criminalize installing a lighter trigger spring or adjusting an adjustable trigger to decrese trigger pull. It would criminalize polishing a gun's action or using a better performing lubricant than the gun shipped with. Because it never defines what a baseline rate of fire is it could criminalize most anything, including grip and trigger finger exercise devices in the possesion of a gun owner. Criminally crappy legislation.

  • Cyto||

    If only we had an organization that was centered around the principles of defending the constitution and holding the government's feet to the fire to ensure that they follow the law....

    I mean, sure, we have the courts. But they don't even pretend that they follow the letter of the law any more.

    And yeah, the members of congress swear an oath and all... but you know.. congress.

    And the President and his cabinet members, they all are supposed to do that.. but you know... politics.

    And yeah, we have the ACLU and the bar association and such.... but they kinda focus on outcomes for their constituency.

    You'd think that we could just make the simple argument: "Follow the law as written. If you don't like the law, change the law."

    But somehow that isn't on the table. So when the law says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", nobody is simply standing up and saying "the constitution doesn't allow you to restrict gun ownership. If you want to do that, you are going to need an amendment to the constitution".

    This one simple requirement would radically change the way our government operates.

  • sarcasmic||

    Checks and balances have been replaced with deference.

  • Cyto||

    This one just drives me nuts. Part of it is my background in coding and logic, I suppose.

    Whoever the first idiot who decided that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" and gave the government a pass on following the law might be, they should be hung up by their thumbs for a hundred years.

    Apart from "deference", everyone involved has decided to agree that "constitutional" means "fair" or "just". Not "follows the letter of the law as written in the constitution".

    You hear it all the time in gun control debates: "Do you think it is a good idea for people to have machine guns??" Good idea doesn't enter into it. The law is clear - no infringing. Not even for battleships.

    The same is true in freedom of association and free speech debates. The law is absolutely clear. 'Shall make no law" is crystal clear. Yet somehow the courts have decided that there is an unwritten "unless there is a compelling government interest" exception.

    If that's what you want the law to say, you need to amend the law to say that. We really, really screwed the pooch on this one. The whole point was to be a government of laws, not a government of men. And we flat blew it. Nobody even pretends to be constrained by the constitution any more.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some of us still care about what the constitution says.

    As this slippery slope goes, so does law abiding citizens not using bump stocks to water the Tree of Liberty.

  • Rat on a train||

    I will insert an argument against battleships. An originalist reading of 'right to keep and bear arms' could distinguish arms from ordnance. A battleship would be ordnance and thus not protected.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A battleship is not ordnance.

    Private Americans had sailing ships fitted with canons during the Revolutionary War. There's your old timey battleship.

    Canons were also loaned from private individuals to the militias and Washington's army.

    The truth is that all weapons should be protected for private use under the 2nd Amendment. I know that scares people and too bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    The truth is that all weapons should be protected for private use under the 2nd Amendment. I know that scares people and too bad.

    Yep. Limited only by what a person can afford to buy.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    How exactly do you bear a battleship, antiaircraft artillery, or a nuclear bomb?

  • BYODB||

    It's a pointless argument since you can't even simply carry a gun around in plenty of places which is explicitly the point of that particular amendment. Since you can't exercise it according to it's plain language, why would you expect a more liberal interpretation to be accepted?

  • ace_m82||

    Bring the ship around to bear!

    There, you "bear"ed it.

  • Rat on a train||

    Well, not the ship. But artillery is ordnance. That private ordnance existed does not invalidate a distinction between arms and ordnance. The 2A enumerates a right to arms. That does not mean ordnance must be prohibited.

  • ||

    An originalist reading of 'right to keep and bear arms' could distinguish arms from ordnance.

    Distinguish? Possibly. Separate? No.

    You'd get pretty twisted to say that they meant 'arms' as 'specifically and only what an individual could carry' and extrapolate that to meaning 'A well-regulated militia without cannons and mortars,' (and still jive with the whole limited government, defense of liberty thing).

  • Rat on a train||

    Laws at the time of the drafting did distinguish between arms and ordnance. Militia members had requirement to bring the own arms and sometimes some powder for the government owned ordnance.

  • ||

    Laws at the time of the drafting did distinguish between arms and ordnance. Militia members had requirement to bring the own arms and sometimes some powder for the government owned ordnance.

    And excluded the people who produced the ordnance from storing it or showing up and serving with the militia?

    My point wasn't that the FF couldn't (legally or sensibly) distinguish as much as the FF were capable of distinguishing, separating, and even forbidding and didn't do so explicitly.

    That they left open the notion of private arms and ordinance organizations self-organizing because what they really wanted was a government-controlled, military-industrial complex.

  • ||

    That they left open the notion of private arms and ordinance organizations self-organizing because what they really wanted was a government-controlled, military-industrial complex.

    ^Is reading a lot into what is(n't) written well beyond making shit up whole cloth (not that penaltaxing isn't a thing).

  • Rat on a train||

    They could have put a right to ordnance if they desired. The text only mentions arms. That ordnance isn't mentioned doesn't require prohibition but does allow restrictions not allowed for arns.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The argument for battleships isn't the Second Amendment - it's Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The founders pretty clearly envisioned a country defended by citizen militias and privateers (which is to say, privately owned warships) rather than a standing army and navy.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Constitution does allow a standing navy. A standing army was never intended.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Fun fact from the link: the only time Congress has actually issued a letter of marque since the War of 1812 was in 1941, when they authorized Goodyear to use one of its blimps as an anti-submarine privateer.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You can't bear a battleship.

    The Second Amendment was clearly intended only to protect small arms.

  • ace_m82||

    You can bring a battleship to bear. You can bring the artillery to bear. You can bring your guns (of any size) to "bear".

    You are wrong.

  • BYODB||

    A bearing is not bearing something. Hooray, English.

  • Rat on a train||

    A single bearing doesn't get you much. You need two for a cut and three for a fix.

  • ace_m82||

    "Bearing" refers to standing or moving. You bring a gun or weapon to bear (point it) but you also bear it (hold or move it). The word is the same. The right to "bear" something is the right to carry, move, or keep it steady.

    Ergo, you can bring a battleship or artillery to "bear" in the same manner you can "bear" a small arm.

  • chemjeff||

    nobody is simply standing up and saying "the constitution doesn't allow you to restrict gun ownership. If you want to do that, you are going to need an amendment to the constitution".

    But we have a living constitution, don't you see. And the Constitution is so alive, it is not only living, but dancing the salsa and having a jolly good time! Who knows what it will do next? Only 9 guys in black robes know for sure!

  • Rat on a train||

    The decrees of the Nazgul are infallible until they aren't.

  • sarcasmic||

    as would lighter triggers, and heavier recoil springs, both of which allow for a faster rate of fire

    So any firearm with a trigger-job would be illegal?

  • Cyto||

    So any firearm with a trigger-job would be illegal?

    FTFY /proggie

  • SIV||

    The link specifies "semi-automatic rifles".

  • ||

    So any firearm with a trigger-job would be illegal?

    Depending on how hard and fast the ATF or whomever wants to get with the law, muzzle breaks and even adjusting your gas compensator could count.

    But, it's all novelties that make you completely inaccurate and isn't essential to the defense of liberty so what the fuck ever.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Presumably polishing/modifying parts would not be illegal, only new parts that are added to the mechanism to increase the rate of fire.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    even if it passes unanimously, the bill brings the nation no closer to preventing what happened in Las Vegas.

    It makes me feel better though.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Binary triggers, which fires a round on both the pull and release of the trigger, would also likely be prohibited under this language, as would lighter triggers"

    Lighter triggers is a big problem.

    People get lighter triggers for all sorts of reasons. On extremely popular, compact, 9mm handguns, for instance, lighter triggers are as much or more about accuracy on subsequent shots than rapid firing.

    Making shooters less accurate with common handguns is a public safety issue.

  • TxJack 112||

    This language will likely get stripped out in reconciliation because as you have said, it is impossible to actually define. What defines a lighter trigger? 4lbs, 2lbs? For me, this is no different than all the idiots last week who believed you could increase the rate of fire to 70,000 rds a minute just because they saw it in a Youtube video.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are they really going to stop S&W Performance Center from offering a lighter trigger on an M&P Shield 9mm with a 7+1 firing capacity and a 3.1" barrel--because some lunatic fired a thousand rounds into a crowd from a hundred yards away?

    Is this what they mean by "common sense gun control"?

    It makes no sense.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Lighter triggers is a big problem.

    If a heavier trigger is good enough for the NYPD, it's good enough for you.

  • ||

    On extremely popular, compact, 9mm handguns, for instance, lighter triggers are as much or more about accuracy on subsequent shots than rapid firing.

    The whole point of select fire and full-auto is that you eliminate the need to pull the trigger in both time and space.

    Really, this whole thing has been some sort of bizarre re-visit of the campus rape thing where, because guns, half the forum redefines a special class of rape as double-secret, 'Not OK' based on the number of participants or the rate of thrusting.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    The bill only applies to semiauto rifles, not handguns.

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem is defining a "lighter trigger" and a "heavier recoil spring". The only thing this bill will do is make sure there is a mad rush to buy all these items before the ban takes effect. This bill is a foray into pretending to do something that will like all the other lawmaker responses do nothing to stop crime. Politico has a great poll out demonstrating the stupidity of the anti gun crowd. Many still believe you can buy a gun at gun show without a background check (nationally 99% of sellers at gun shows are dealers who must complete a background check). They also think there is a way to require a background check on private sales. Private sales constitute about 2% of all gun sales in the US. Are they really an issue? The depth of stupidity in the anti gun crowd and Democrats in general is astonishing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Actually, the problem is that voters let politicians get away with violating the constitution.

    All discussions on the tech of triggers or bump stock capabilities are moot because the Constitution prohibits infringing on any keeping and bearing of arms.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Those terms aren't even in the bill. It broadly bans any part that increases the rate of fire of a semiauto rifle.

  • Rat on a train||

    Does it specify how much of an increase? Is 1 rpm sufficient to ban?

  • ||

    I'm gonna need it spelled out with differential equations. That is to say, a 30 round magazine doesn't increase cycling speed but can increase the rate of fire over a 15 round one over the larger time frame.

    Once the numbers check out theoretically, the ban will still be amoral, but I don't have a problem with making them do the math first.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The picture is misleading showing Paul Ryan and Rep. Curbelo together as if united. That is not to say that Paul Ryan has endorsed this particular piece of unconstitutional garbage legislation. Paul Ryan is a RINO though, sop you never know.

    Also: Off to buy as as many bump stocks as can get my hands on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny how Democrats do not control the House, Senate, Supreme Court, nor Presidency yet get one of their unconstitutional agenda items to flow through government.

    Its almost like the Democrats and Republicans are the same corrupt party looking to shred the constitution and gain more power.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""Its almost like the Democrats and Republicans are the same corrupt party looking to shred the constitution and gain more power.""

    You woke yet?

  • chemjeff||

    They're not the same party. But they are both operating according to incentives predicted by public choice theory. They want to get re-elected, so they will do what it takes to get re-elected. Since there is a vanishingly small "pro-bump-stock" constituency, they are all coming out against bump stocks.

  • BYODB||

    Pretty much this. It's one primary reason why democracies inevitably fail.

  • paranoid android||

    They told me if I didn't vote for Trump, the government would pass new gun control legislation, and they were right!

  • John||

    He can only sign what the Congress gives him. If he signs this, he will be responsible for it. He will not, however, be the only one. The Republicans in Congress will own it as well.

    No one in either party gives a fuck about gun rights or rights in general. They only care to the extent voters make them care. They figure they can get away with this, so they are doing it.

  • Brandybuck||

    I predict in 2020 the Republican Party will still be enormously popular with conservatives. All they need is for the Democrat party to run a Democrat, and all the evils the GOP does between 2016 and 2020 will be instantly forgotten.

    "The Republican Party may be a vat of rancid pig fat, but they're OUR vat of rancid pig fat!"

  • ||

    This is why, from the beginning, I've said that Trump isn't as scary as what comes after Trump.

    You don't elect Trump over Hillary and come out with the less-Nationalist/Statist candidates, more moral politicians, or more capable leaders at the other end of the term. Not that I blame Trump by any means (it's been true since at least B. Clinton).

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Not that I blame Trump by any means (it's been true since at least B. ClintonH. Hoover)

    Fixed it for you.

  • BYODB||

    I don't know, there's perhaps some truth to the Bill Clinton bit considering that the South wasn't as heavily and predictably red until sometime in the early 90's from what I've read.

    That...roughly tracks with my experience but I was too busy doing other things in the early 90's to have any real recollection of politics at the time beyond the Clinton impeachment and Newts shenanigans.

  • Brendan||

    I don't imagine the assault weapons ban and constant gun control pushes helped with the Democrats standing in the south.

  • John||

    Sure it will be. And that is the wages of the Democrats going insane.The real downside of the Democrats going nuts is that it is now impossible to hold the Republicans accountable for anything. Our two choices are now "the stupid and incompetent party" or "the too crazy and evil to vote for under any circumstances party."

  • BYODB||

    I'm not so sure that it's even a safe assumption that Republicans are the 'stupid and incompetent party' rather than an evil son of a bitch that pretends all of their massive fuck ups are an accident rather than a purposeful movement.

    I mean, Mitch McConnell is truly a travesty of a human being and Paul Ryan clearly has zero scruples so at the very least leadership is corrupt.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny how banning bump stocks will bump.......stocks... of bump stocks up.

  • ||

    I think you needed to push forward harder on the joke while holding the delivery more firmly against your body.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I'll stock your bump!

  • John||

    We have the bill. Let me know when it passes. Until then, who cares about it? There are plenty of people in both parties who would love to take away your guns. That has been obvious for a while.

  • jcw||

    Are you saying that we shouldn't talk about legislation until it passes, generally, or about this specific topic?

  • John||

    I am saying there isn't much to talk about until you see if it passes and in what form if it does.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    At which point it would be the law. Did you wake up in a Nancy Pelosi mood?

  • ace_m82||

    So you didn't discus Obamacare before it passed?

  • jcw||

    The idea that we shouldn't talk about proposed legislation until it passes is as bipartisan as this bump stock ban. Scary thought.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Doesn't this outlaw pretty much every single modern weapon that has any sort of auto-ejection method?

  • Brandybuck||

    My nickname in college was "Auto-Ejection Method".

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Huh. I went to a rural college, and mine was "Bump stock".

  • geraltcloud9||

    Oh come on. This is the kind of nonsense that left wing propagandists will use to point out the lunacy of libertarians. You can fire off 10 rounds in 2 seconds using a regular semi-automatic weapon. You're telling me that not being able to fire TWENTY rounds in that amount of time is the slippery slope that threatens all gun rights? As if this bill passing puts us on the path to the government raiding your house for your self defense handgun six months from now. This is simply a common sense measure- if you don't think that the restrictions on fully automatic weapons in 1986 destroyed the second amendment, then ensuring today that simple modifications don't completely undermine the automatic weapon's regulations is in no way a new or dangerous threat to the constitution. Pick battles that make some form of logical sense- that's one of the main the reasons I identify as a libertarian in the first place.

  • Rebel Scum||

    The point of 2A is that the citizenry be armed comparable to the government's military. This law is not common sense or constitutional. It will, if passed, join tens of thousands of firearms laws that are, on their face, unconstitutional. It will also, if passed, do absolutely nothing to stop mass murder.

    if you don't think that the restrictions on fully automatic weapons in 1986 destroyed the second amendment

    Preventing citizens from acquiring modern firearms tech is unconstitutional.

    undermine the automatic weapon's regulations

    Bump stocks do not undermine regulation of automatic firearms because they do not make the firearm automatic.

    Try to remember that words mean things.

  • geraltcloud9||

    I'm not sure you know what the word constitutional means, and you clearly have no understanding of the actual legal precedent around the 2nd amendment. No court has ever found that an unrestricted and unregulated gun market is required by the second amendment, and no historical reading of the intention of the second amendment supports your fairly absurd declaration of the limits of the constitutional protection. Good lord, the absolutely ridiculous and ignorant claims people make around this issue are simply ludicrous.

  • ||

    Oh we know the legal precedent, but its wrong. There cannot be a more explicit command than "shall not be infringed". There cannot be a better definition than "the right to keep and bear arms". But both are constantly ignored because people like you and the Courts don't like the answer.

    You clearly have no understanding of the historical context of the Second Amendment. Please do some reading.

  • Brendan||

    Please fuck off.

  • mr burns||

    Bump stocks are novelty items because they make aimed fire impossible for all but the most expert and physically fit shooter. They are a toy. With competent aimed fire (assuming there was only one las vegas shooter) there would have been fewer people shot but a lot more killed. So, excluding constitutional issues, it not only a useless but probably a counterproductive law. Try knowing what you are talking about.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I would be on board with a specific bump stock ban.

    But this bill is way too vague. It literally bans any part that increases the rate of fire of a semiauto rifle -- increases compared to what? The factory condition of the rifle? So if the rifle comes from the factory with a gritty, creepy trigger and I get a new trigger assembly to make it usable, I'm now a felon?

    And there's no mention of exemption for manufacturers or already-owned parts. So could it be illegal for a manufacturer to start making better trigger assemblies for new rifles in one of their existing models? After all, they could be used to increase the rate of fire in the old rifles too.

  • Brendan||

    Even a new gun oil could be banned if it reduces friction compared to what's on the market now.

  • ||

    So if the rifle comes from the factory with a gritty, creepy trigger and I get a new trigger assembly to make it usable, I'm now a felon?

    If the rifle, from the factory, goes off randomly once a month and you modify it to fire predictably at any rate greater than 1 rd./mo. you're a felon.

  • Brendan||

    It's worth pointing out that the investigation isn't even finished yet, and they've got a bill ready.

    Hopefully every Republican who pushed for this loses their seat when it comes up for election.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Is there doubt about how the shooter was able to fire so rapidly?

  • BYODB||

    There is doubt that it made any actual difference one way or another.

  • Brendan||

    A teeny, tiny bit. It would be nice to have the investigation complete, which would include answers on which guns were fired, whether any were modified, etc.

    Anyone who's ever fired a semi-auto rifle knows that they can be fired about as quickly as you can pull the trigger with a finger.

    It's worth pointing out that someone firing with just their finger has a lot more control and could have aimed more precisely at the crowd. As it was, his firing rate was inconsistent, which means he would have had trouble accounting for recoil. As the rate goes up, more effort is needed to keep the rifle on target, followed by the firing rate dropping and the rifle going off target in the other direction.
    Picture someone 'pushing' against muzzle climb due to recoil. When when recoil drops, so the does the muzzle due to the effort used to keep it from climbing.

    I will say that things could have been even worse if had fired in controlled bursts with just his finger and not used any bumpfire stock.

  • ||

    From the crime scene photos, it *appears* that he has (at the feet of his corpse) one rifle with a bipod (and no apparent bump stock), one rifle with a bump stock just out of arms reach, and another rifle of indistinguishable modification.

    A bump stock requires the rifle's forward and backward movement to fire, a bipod negates this and causes inconsistent 'full auto'. IMO, it's not at all clear that he used a bump stock (exclusively), let alone that it made any difference with regard to fire rate, hit ratios, etc.

  • ||

    And by *appears* I mean the images aren't of the resolution that allows anyone to seriously determine things like trigger modification, not that I believe the photos to be staged or doctored or whatever.

  • Brendan||

    Indeed.

    They said that 12 of the 23 had bumpfire stocks installed, but have yet to say if they've determined which ones were actually used.

    Some were found jammed, according to one news report.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Link?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Depends on what the bipod was resting on. If it was on a slippery but hard horizontal surface, it could hold up the front of the gun without interfering with the bumping. Even on top of a pillow it could do this, freeing up the shooter's hand to do other things (retrieve magazines, etc).

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The representative added that the bill was an "important first step to address gun violence."

    Yep, there it is. The slope is getting greased as we speak.

    I suppose it would be considered rude to ask him "what's the second step?" or "how many steps are there?"

  • Rich||

    Or, given that it's *an* "important first step", what are other first steps?

  • Rich||

    The law promises to ban any part that increases the rate of fire from a semi-automatic weapon

    I thought energy drinks had already been banned.

  • Rich||

    Hope these clowns don't find out about Jerry!

  • ||

    Or Bob Munden, or Ed McGivern, or any one of dozens of other "bang 'n clang" western speed shooters from the last half-century.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So they're banning a keyring and a shoelace?

  • Curmudgeon44||

    This timing is about as smart as deciding what to do with Japanese on December 8, 1941.

  • Unable2Reason||

    Don't we have a right to know what outside organization wrote this bill? This is plainly a wish list long in the making. Who's been lurking in the shadows waiting for the next disaster to spring it? Democratic politicians don't know barrel from buttstock, they just want to grab as much as they can. They didn't write it. Going after heavier recoil springs and lighter triggers - come on!

    Looks like the party of stupid just got force fed a gun grabbers dream list and by the time they got a chance to reject a couple of red herrings that were thrown on the list as bait, they probably ended up actually believing that the whole thing was their idea from the beginning.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Curbelo conforms with the First Rule of Ducks:
    If you speak like a gun-grabber, and act like a gun-grabber, you're a gun-grabber.
    If they wish to ban "bump-stocks", all well and good:
    Ban Bump-stocks!
    But this bill has already become a "christmas tree" with far too many decorations hung on it.
    It should be defeated with a note:
    Nice try, but no cigar. Thank You, for trying!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Oh, and BTW, how much money does this bill set-aside to compensate current owners for their lawfully acquired property that you've just turned into contraband? Did you even think about the "Takings" issue that is involved?

  • ranrod||

    The TRUTH about the "supremacy clause" - our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc.

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ ?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+"supremacy+clause

  • ranrod||

    There is no such thing as "gun violence". This is a focus-group-driven buzzword and talking point to create an imaginary bogeyman as the main anti 2nd Amendment propaganda tool. There are PEOPLE who commit violence with guns, but there are many more people who commit violence without them.
    And, since the term "gun violence" is a catchword/cliche, the title suggests an unattainable goal. People have been robbing and killing other people, using the weapons of the day, since the beginning of man on this planet, which identifies the real issue - controlling criminal impulses in humans, not the otherwise legal instruments they use to commit crimes.
    Anyone who doesn't realize and/or acknowledge this isn't thinking, s/he is 'feeling', and our liberty cannot depend upon what anybody 'feels'.

  • ranrod||

    The common meme among the leftist gun grabbers is that "no one is going to take away your guns". But it has always been obvious to people who actually think in any rational and sane manner that that is the ultimate goal of all Democratic party politicians, and, sadly some Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and several others we all know about....chip chip

    *The Second Amendment was not inserted into our Bill of Rights for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. It was put there for the purpose of the people being able to defend themselves from criminals AND from oppressive governments.

  • ranrod||

    The 2nd Amend is a RESTRICTIVE admendment. It states such in the Preamble to Bill of Rights. the 2A does not grant nor convey any right, but RESTRICTS and PROHIBITS the government from infringing upon this enumerated, pre-existing, God given right.

    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media hookers tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..
    American Thinker

  • teeduke||

    I have owned guns, shot guns, enjoyed using them and have admired some of their workmanship. They are ultimately, tools. But turning a semi-automatic weapon into one that fires continuously, turning it into what is in essence a machine gun, is one step over the line for me. I know you can fire a semi-automatic as quickly as you can pull the trigger; that's okay in my book. But from what I have seen in videos of weapons equipped with bump stocks, firing a barrage of bullets, I can't see permitting that without also permitting the sale and ownership of actual machine guns. They are effectively one-in-the-same.

  • Enemy of the State||

    I'm just going to put in the tip babe, don't worry...

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Anyone who condones what is referred to as "common-sense" gun control in abrogation of the Second Amendment as written and interpreted post-Heller is an asshole.

    That is all.

  • eldrick||

    you need look no further then title IX to see how the left will destroy a good idea

  • Shootist||

    That progressives and cowards act as progressives and cowards should come as no surprise to anyone.

  • jerryg1018||

    Retroactively banning bump stocks purchased prior to the enactment of a law banning them violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. It's the reason the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban only applied to firearms manufactured after the ban became law. It's also the reason that recent attempts to make unlawful possession of previously purchased high capacity magazines were struck down by the federal courts.
    Go here to find your senator and congressman to send them a note telling them that if they vote for the bump stock or any other gun ban they can start looking for another job,

    https://democracy.io/#/location

    democracy IO is a project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org

  • Henry||

    "Curbelo said in a press release, "this common-sense legislation will ban devices that blatantly circumvent already existing law without restricting Second Amendment rights."

    Pay no attention to the fact that those existing laws already unconstitutionally infringe on Second Amendment rights In the first place.

  • swampwiz||

    Concerning gun control, I would rather have it decided by a man who walked around with a lot of guns as a USMC Captain in Iraq (Moulton).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online