Patterico's Pontifications

10/3/2017

Bye Bye Bump Stocks

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:30 pm

Multiple reports have said that the Las Vegas shooter used “bump stocks” — a device that allows one to fire a semi-automatic weapon at speeds approximating that of a fully automatic weapon. Susan Wright took a look at them earlier today in this post, which contains video of the devices in use. The New York Times elaborates, and says there is a renewed effort to ban them now:

Bump stocks are legal and inexpensive, with some versions advertised for $99.

A standard stock is firmly fixed to the rifle. But a bump stock allows the body of the rifle to slide a short distance back and forth, harnessing the recoil energy of each shot. The shooter does not move the trigger finger; instead, the weapon bounces, or “bumps,” rapidly between shoulder and finger.

In 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed outlawing bump stocks, but Congress has not acted on her proposal. She proposed a ban again on Tuesday.

It does not appear that this device has been used often (ever?) in past mass shootings. But with the copycat phenomenon, there is a good chance others will try in the future.

Why make it easy for them?

I am a Second Amendment supporter, but in talking to other Second Amendment supporters over the past day or so, I have found nobody who is furiously opposed to banning these devices.

The concern will always be that the left will come after more and more guns. They’ll want to take all semi-automatic firearms, for example.

Well, they will try. And we won’t let them.

But I don’t see the big problem in getting rid of a device that allows a shooter to turn a semi-automatic weapon into the functional equivalent of an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are already banned, with minor exceptions. Nobody seems to have a big problem with that. I don’t.

I’m open to hearing the arguments against such a repeal. But I’m skeptical.

And I think a lot of people agree with me.

So if you like bump stocks, probably best to get them now. Because I have a feeling they may be outlawed relatively soon.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

320 Responses to “Bye Bye Bump Stocks”

  1. two words:

    3d printing

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Reposting Happy’s comment for Patterico’s benefit

    two words:

    3d printing

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2017 @ 7:47 pm

    kishnevi (d097a6)

  3. Fine, but you understand that will not be the end of it, this is our dunblane, our part Arthur, the forces sores put in motion through bill Ayres a quarter century ago will seize their opportunity

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. This maybe a situation where we the second amendment community gets behind the banning of the bump stock to protect against the full prohibition of semi-auto rifles.

    Matthew S Wideman (dc40e0)

  5. Reposting Happy’s comment for Patterico’s benefit

    two words:

    3d printing

    happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2017 @ 7:47 pm

    OK. There will always be ways to do an illegal end run around the law. If that becomes reason not to pass the law to begin with, then there will be no laws.

    Anyway, why repost comments I don’t want to see so that I will see them? I don’t understand that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. So remember the assaults weapon ban, that feinstein pushed, after long island railroad, did itmatter that it worked or not. Ingenuity finds a way, around the ban.

    narciso (d1f714)

  7. (I originally wrote this for posting on the RedState version, but re-post it here:)

    From 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), the definitional section of present gun control law that restricts ownership and requires registration and heavy ongoing regulation of fully automatic weapons — aka “machineguns” in the language of the statute:

    The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

    See also 27 CFR § 479.11, which has the same language.

    I am no gunsmith nor super-enthusiast, just a shotgun owner and former hunter who’s used semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, and rifles. If I properly understand the functioning of the bump stock (from watching videos and looking at diagrams), the shooter pulls and holds down the trigger once while the weapon’s recoil from the cartridge discharge is then offset by a spring mounted between stock and weapon, such that the spring will cause the trigger to be activated repeatedly with no further effort by the shooter except holding his finger in place, which in turn will cause a semi-automatic weapon to fire repeatedly, at rates comparable to fully-automatic weapons, until the weapon’s magazine is empty.

    That first and only trigger-pull by the shooter seems to me to be a “single function of the trigger” within the literal meaning words of the statute, meaning in turn that the bump stock is a “combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” meaning the bump stock should be treated as a matter of law as if it were a machinegun itself.

    It seems to me that even Second Amendment enthusiasts, among which I count myself along with Justice Scalia’s ghost, generally are agreed that fully-automatic weapons can and should be regulated along the lines created by the 1934 National Firearm Act (as occasionally since amended). I’ve read, but not independently confirmed, that the BATFE treats conversion kits as if they are “machineguns” themselves, meaning that if they’re not registered properly to an approved owner after BATFE pre-approval of the transfer (and surely they aren’t), then they’re just as illegal to possess as a “machinegun” would be.

    I know many Second Amendment enthusiasts have long worried that the Left would try very hard to change this law and this regulation in order to make illegal, or at least heavily regulated, all semi-automatic weapons. But I don’t think recognizing bump stocks as being equivalent to the already-banned conversion kits would be controversial.

    Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller presumes the constitutionality of the laws restricting fully automatic weapons; indeed, he mocked Justice Breyer for making an argument that, if true, would have meant the 1934 Act was unconstitutional. The NRA’s not out campaigning for everyone to have fully-automatic weapons, and if it is smart, it will use this as an occasion to educate the public while agreeing to treat bump stocks like conversion kits under existing law.

    I cannot account for this, which purports to be a BATFE letter from the Obama Era (!) approving bump stocks, and states:

    In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.

    That seems to completely ignore the statutory language on “single function of the trigger.” I think it’s just wrong.

    Trump could direct the BATFE to withdraw this and any similar opinions, but doesn’t even need to tell BATFE to do any new rulemakings or take public comments: With the stroke of a pen and a news conference, he can blame the Las Vegas shooting ON OBAMA.

    I’m new to this and willing to be educated if I’m missing something. But I’m inclined to think this isn’t the hill to defend the Second Amendment upon.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  8. Sadly, this will mean the end of semi-auto rifles in California, not to mention bump stocks, trigger cranks or any magazine larger than 8 cartridges. All the grandfathered stuff is going to be called in, just like they really want to do with all guns. It will be a miracle if they don’t ban semi-auto handguns.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  9. Well its calufirnia, is they will go after as much as they can take, like the vampire ex anchor in omega man, looking for prey. This is a pivotal moment choose carefully.

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. This has been a topic over at Say Uncle for a few years. First the BATF approved bump stocks. (One particularly good brand, anyway.) Then it disapproved them. Then it approved them again with some modifications.

    The “fault”, if any is in the original definition of machine gun from the FDR era National Firearms Act: More than one shot from one pull of the trigger. Bump firing is multiple pulls of the trigger, just real fast.

    And you don’t need a bump stock or any other add-on to do it.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. if criminals do an illegal end run around the law they’re gonna have to be punished

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. Our host asked in #5, referring to kish’s post at #4:

    [W]hy repost comments I don’t want to see so that I will see them? I don’t understand that.

    kish can of course speak for himself, but my reaction to his post was along the lines of, “I know you’ll probably miss this since you’ve announced that you have [hateful]feet’s posts blocked, Patterico, but he said something that I, kish, am curious about our host’s reaction to, which was ____.” I didn’t presume kish was adopting or vouching for the comment, but merely that he thought our host might have an interesting response, which in fact he did.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. It isn’t about any weapon or tool in particular, the automatic weapon is the soft underbelly of the argument, most crimes are committed with handguns or single shot rifle.

    narciso (d1f714)

  14. kish can of course speak for himself, but my reaction to his post was along the lines of, “I know you’ll probably miss this since you’ve announced that you have [hateful]feet’s posts blocked, Patterico, but he said something that I, kish, am curious about our host’s reaction to, which was ____.” I didn’t presume kish was adopting or vouching for the comment, but merely that he thought our host might have an interesting response, which in fact he did.

    Fair enough, if that was the intent.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  15. @ nk, re #10: That Glock in your video link is indeed firing fast, but that’s what, 10 rounds from a handgun? How many people — even regular and frequent shooters — can manage that? That’s like a trick from a sleight-of-hand magician as far as I’m concerned. By contrast, the bump stock videos make it pretty clear that any, well, bumpkin can achieve automatic-weapon firing rates just by holding on tight.

    I don’t have any trouble concluding that a bump stock is essentially the same as a semi-to-full conversion. Do the pro-bump-stock crowd at Say Uncle argue that civilians need that kind of rate of fire on a non-registered basis? In other words, is there anyone in this debate who’s a grown-up — not just an arrested adolescent who thinks machine guns are really cool and therefore wants one, cheap and now and legal — who can argue that bump stocks are anything different than conversion kits in purpose and effect?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. They do — they call it “turning money into noise”. They like guns and they like shooting them. At inanimate targets, and they want to be able to do it legally.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. Well, banning bump stocks because they are equivalent to illegal conversion to automatic fire may be the right thing to do, but this

    we the second amendment community gets behind the banning of the bump stock to protect against the full prohibition of semi-auto rifles

    never works. There’s no bargains with the Left. All progressive slopes are slippery.

    Affirmative action -> quotas, civil unions -> gay marriage, etc etc.

    Frederick (63491b)

  18. @Beldar:Do the pro-bump-stock crowd at Say Uncle argue that civilians need that kind of rate of fire on a non-registered basis?

    I know your intentions are good, but here you are conceding the gun-grabber logic. Who gets to decide what civilians need on a non-registered basis? Does any one need a semi-automatic? Does anyone need a pump shotgun? And so forth.

    I liked the other argument, that existing law should cover bump stocks.

    Frederick (63491b)

  19. Gatling guns have always been legal as long as they’re hand-cranked, by the way. They were not affected by the NFA at all. (Electric-powered ones like the Minigun are a different matter.)

    nk (dbc370)

  20. They have eyes, yet they refuse to see, honestly its like groundhog day, yet they find trump insincere, this was one of Obama’s driving passions, expressed through the Joyce foundation.

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. Holders wanted to instill a hatred if firearms, we know how the sullivsnnlawa and even those in Illinois have worked out.

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. If we’re gonna dive into the nitty-gritty morass of line-drawing problems (and I think we should), how many rounds of ammunition do we think a person should lawfully be allowed to possess?

    Leviticus (67f244)

  23. If “gun control” is anathema, how bout “bullet control”? The Chris Rock model

    Leviticus (67f244)

  24. What do you think is fair, do they teach the constitution in law school anymore?

    narciso (d1f714)

  25. @Leviticus:how many rounds of ammunition do we think a person should lawfully be allowed to possess?

    Why don’t you tell us what the right answer is?

    Frederick (63491b)

  26. How about we weather this storm, see how it ahakez out. This is the cleverness that brought there’s nay to a razor thin majority dependent on the unionists

    narciso (d1f714)

  27. @ Frederick (#18): I always appreciate your civil comments, including this one. But do you likewise think Justice Scalia was conceding gun-grabber logic?

    I think the existing law does represent a constitutionally valid line-drawing by Congress because fully automatic weapons — based on their rate of fire — create dangers sufficient to meet the compelling state interest test for least-restrictive-means tailored abridgement of a fundamental constitutional right like that created by the Second Amendment. I think that’s why the 1934 Act is constitutional, as Scalia presumed. I think the chance of getting even a single Justice now on the SCOTUS to go beyond that toward Second Amendment absolutism is zero.

    I think existing law likewise represents a determination by Congress that other weapons including semi-automatics, pumps, and bolt action weapons don’t. I think the way you keep from slipping down any slippery slopes is to treat this like what is is: A gadgety attempt to evade the purpose and intent and plain language of current law. In that light, the Las Vegas shooting becomes another example, then, of how existing gun laws need to be enforced more consistently and diligently, not how they need to be changed.

    I’ve long thought that the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups don’t do a good enough job of public education about existing gun laws, which is one of the reason so many people on the left can go decades under the delusion that “assault rifle” is a meaningful term. The Las Vegas shooter was using illegal weapons if bump stocks –> machinegun under existing law. If not, he was apparently using legal weapons.

    One of the interesting things in press interviews with concertgoers is how many of them — country-western fans who included a ton of ex-military and survivalists and law enforcement — spontaneously commented, “This sounded like fully automatic firing, it was so fast and went on for so long.” These were people who understand and probably have fired semi-automatic weapons, and their astonishment was real. (These were also the same people applying tourniquets, leading others to cover, tearing down fencing for makeshift stretchers, and basically using the same combat evac techniques the Marines used in Fallujah, except in downtown Las Vegas — God bless them every single one, my eyes water to even think of them!) None of those folks are going to be much put out to be told, “Well, we figured out that the Obama Administration stopped enforcing our existing gun laws regarding fully automatic weapons, so we’re making these bump stocks a registered item just like the conversion kits.”

    So this isn’t about satisfying the lefties. I agree, they aren’t negotiating in good faith, they’re not who we need to be making deals with, they don’t care about guns or gun owners or distinctions among them, and they’ll always be the numbskulls that think a bipod and a folding stock means someone’s got a “high-powered military assault rifle useful for no purpose other than slaughtering small babies by the hundreds!!1!!”

    This is about satisfying the people who do understand that we can actually meaningfully enforce what we all thought was a reasonably effective set of regulations and registration requirements that had been limited to fully automatic weapons. Because if we can’t satisfy all of those people, some of them will wander over toward the lefties. And then we’ll see not just registration requirements or outright bans for bump stocks, but also for large-capacity magazines, for semi-automatic weapons, and eventually for all guns, period. The way to avoid that slippery slope is simply to take the step back onto the ledge we thought we’d carved already.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. “Prohibited persons”*, by and large, face the same penalty for possession of ammunition as they do for possession of a firearm.

    *Felons, wife-beaters, mentally ill ….

    nk (dbc370)

  29. we should at least wait and see what Jimmy Kimmel says

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  30. “This sounded like fully automatic firing, it was so fast and went on for so long.”

    Yes, I thought it was a bipod-mounted light machine gun (SAW maybe) when I first heard it on the video because of the rate of fire.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Fine go ahead, as axelrod said, don’t let a crisis go to waste, and you’ll they will Tucson this thing ad infinitum.

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. @ Leviticus (#23): When Chris Rock learns the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, we can start that discussion. Until then, he’s in the category who are ranting about “assault rifles.” 😀

    In my view, though, ammunition for the weapons whose individual ownership rights are protected by the Second Amendment are necessarily also protected by the Second Amendment, and hence would require the same showing of a compelling state interest to justify restrictions that would need to be narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means, meaning “bullet regulation” is unlikely to pass constitutional muster as a work-around to evade the Second Amendment. Too cute, intellectually dishonest, IMHO. It would be like saying, “Oh we’re not making abortions illegal when we pass a law requiring mothers to participate in childbirth,” to which the proper response is: Who do you think you’re trying to kid? (I believe that’s a legal term of art first used by Chief Justice John Marshall, in fact.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  33. I’m not sure if people here have seen it, but one of the guitarists for the band that was playing where the shootout had this to say:

    I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses, and legal firearms on the bus.

    They were useless.

    We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

    Enough is enough.

    Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

    We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

    One of the possibilities that could happen in the future would be increasing popular support for “strong” gun regulation, or even a movement to repeal the 2nd amendment. A problem I see with a lot of current regulation is that poorly crafted (banning scary guns or accessories). My question is, if you knew that some sort of regulation was coming, how would you craft it to be effective?

    Davethulhu (3a2442)

  34. It’s a serious question: how many rounds of ammunition does a person need to accomplish the purposes most frequently put forth in support of an armed citizenry?

    Leviticus (67f244)

  35. I have no problem banning bump stocks other than:
    You can fire rapidly w/o such device. It just makes it easier.
    You can fabricate a device w/o much effort.
    Banning will create a black market and incentives to find alternatives.
    There are already alternatives.
    Antis will never stop at anything less than a complete ban of firearms. That’s their goal. You don’t deal with the devil.

    WarEagle82 (2b3d34)

  36. I can’t think of 1, 5 or 10 new laws that would prevent an act like this, including a full ban of all firearms. Can anyone come up with such a list?

    WarEagle82 (2b3d34)

  37. There’s also that they’re anathema to guys who spent hours and hours dry-firing while balancing a dime on top of the receiver. They violate the first rule of accuracy: Keeping your gun rock-steady on the target.

    nk (dbc370)

  38. That’s because you hypothesize a sophisticated black market and assume that it will not be policed vigorously. By such standards, why criminalize anything at all?

    Leviticus (67f244)

  39. Who would have thought 14 years, the qurstuob whether a committed Christian baker could defend his livelihood, would be up for debate, or ask the sisters of charity or hobby Libby. How close their hobsons choice was.

    narciso (d1f714)

  40. #39 was for WarEagle

    Leviticus (67f244)

  41. @ Leviticus (#35): My serious answer is, “As many rounds as he thinks he needs given his circumstances.”

    Right now I’ve got about 1000 shotgun shells. Do I plan to shoot 1000 people? No, my good old pump-action home defense shotgun would take a long time to do that. Obviously that is a stockpile — not even a very deep one — anticipating a situation like a natural disaster in which law and order breaks down continually and I’m the only guy in the neighborhood whose family still has some MREs and clean water.

    Serious question to you: Do my 1000 shotgun shells make you worry I’m going to kill 1000 people? Do you think I need to be regulated so that I can only have 800? Or 600? Or 100? Or 10? Do I get to reload? I think the Second Amendment means that I get to make these decisions for myself, and that the government can’t make them for me.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. It’s a serious question: how many rounds of ammunition does a person need to accomplish the purposes most frequently put forth in support of an armed citizenry?

    Just one. So you can kill an enemy soldier and take his gun and ammunition.

    Your question is nuncupatory, Leviticus. How many suits does a lawyer need to accomplish the purposes most frequently put forth in support of the Sixth Amendment?

    nk (dbc370)

  43. if the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts wanna do gun control all up in it, they’re gonna have to let go of the fake news Puerto Rico Katrina narrative

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  44. @Beldar: I think you might have misread me. I fully approve your “bump stocks are already banned” logic, and said so. I objected only to

    Do the pro-bump-stock crowd at Say Uncle argue that civilians need that kind of rate of fire on a non-registered basis?

    And then Leviticus came to drive the point home for me with

    how many rounds of ammunition does a person need to accomplish the purposes most frequently put forth in support of an armed citizenry?

    Frederick (63491b)

  45. @Leviticus:That’s because you hypothesize a sophisticated black market and assume that it will not be policed vigorously. By such standards, why criminalize anything at all?

    I’m pretty sure that’s the marijuana legalization argument right there.

    Frederick (63491b)

  46. i think as long as our national “normal” frame of reference is “planning for the apocalypse” then we will continue to have these sorts of massacres on a regular basis. It’s always the apocalypse to someone.

    Leviticus (67f244)

  47. oh my goodness guns are called peacemakers for a reason you know

    why does hillary hate peace

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  48. Anyway, goodnight. I don’t even think my own arguments on this thread are sound. I would just like to see more people admit that these sorts of massacres are the natural result of the American worldview, so that we could start to forego the feigned ignorance and shock that always accompanies their occurrence.

    Leviticus (67f244)

  49. Ask the folks in puerto rico or the virgin islands how safe they Del depending on the authorities.

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. @ WarEagle82 (#36): Your “other than” points are all variations on hatefulfeet’s “the law won’t be enforceable” argument. Our host knocked that argument senseless in #5 above: “There will always be ways to do an illegal end run around the law. If that becomes reason not to pass the law to begin with, then there will be no laws.”

    But what jumps out at me is how you started your comment: “I have no problem banning bump stocks ….”

    I’m guessing you feel the same way about conversion kits, and trigger cranks — and other gimmicks that are obvious attempts to work around the registration requirements (and resulting near-ban, although we’re still talking hundreds of thousands of registered weapons) for illegally creating fully automatic weapons. Right?

    Just forget the lefties for a second: We can’t choose our own actions simply by always opposing them. That it would make them deliriously happy for bump stocks to be made illegal doesn’t mean we should fight to keep them legal.

    And I think we shouldn’t. I think we should instead use this to ju-jitsu them, to flip this into an argument about how we need better and more consistent enforcement of existing gun laws, not a whole bunch of new (and stupid) gun laws. Make it a continuation of the whole “Fast and Furious” argument: Conservatives and Second Amendment enthusiasts and gun-owners and the NRA are all in favor of enforcement of existing laws. So let’s make this about that, and take the metaphorical and political offensive rather than squirming and trying to reflexively justify the legality of the weapons the Las Vegas shooter was using.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  51. @ Frederick (#45): Thanks for that clarification, then, and my apologies if I did indeed misread you, which I now think likely.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  52. @ Leviticus (#49): Goodnight to you too. Some other time let’s talk about whether “these sorts of massacres are the natural result of the American worldview, so that we could start to forego the feigned ignorance and shock that always accompanies their occurrence.” I might go along with you if you substituted “modern” for “American,” or even “western.” But let’s leave it for another time, friend.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  53. Think how useful it would be to have a bump stock in a zombie apocalypse – you know, where accuracy is overrated and all you need to do is blow away about 400 slow-moving mouldering motherf*ckers who just want to eat your intestines.

    Leviticus (67f244)

  54. Lets enforce the laws that are on the books already, then we’ll see about new ones. In horrible incident and we’re already going to give up, in exchange for what. Its the flip side of the silly game we’ve been pretending with north Korea and Iran.

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. @Beldar (and Patterico):If that becomes reason not to pass the law to begin with, then there will be no laws.

    I’d be surprised to see either of you agree that a law that is unenforceable, or would require such efforts to enforce as would be destructive to civil liberties, is a good law. The question properly is then, is a bump stock ban such a law? If so, it would be a very good reason not to pass such a law.

    There is no law of course that cannot be broken by someone determined enough, but there are laws which simply are not worth trying to enforce.

    Frederick (63491b)

  56. Beldar: I will glady have that conversation with you, in a more rational manner, when I’m not so tired and frustrated, and I expect that i will learn from it. Thank you for extending the offer. Goodnight, my friend.

    Leviticus (67f244)

  57. How many people own bump stocks, lets consider that aspect first, is it worth the hustle bevayse one nut.

    I’m guessing the 1986 rules had something to do with the proliferation of said weapons in the earlier part ifvthe decade.

    narciso (d1f714)

  58. 34. Davethulhu (3a2442) — 10/3/2017 @ 9:12 pm

    A problem I see with a lot of current regulation is that poorly crafted (banning scary guns or accessories). My question is, if you knew that some sort of regulation was coming, how would you craft it to be effective?

    Get rid of super-powerful guns or super-capacity magazines – and by get rid of I mean get rid of them from the police as well, except maybe special units (which might be even a requirement of Heller, but it’s a good idea anyway. Nobody needs to be able to fire more than 3 bullets in rapid succession, because a defender, unlike an attacker, needs to aim carefully, unless he’s in a combat situation against many, and not one, and there’s nobody else there.)

    I’d say in fact cut the number of rounds that could be fired without delay down below 6.

    Now that kind of thing would only make such guns scarcer and more expensive, but that would cut down on the casualty list, and guns used in crimes are never very old. There’s no easy way to get a lot of them for a lack market if they are old.

    Another idea is just simply tax the more deadly guns more.

    You could also borrow much of the legislation against gadget guns (guns that don’t look like traditional guns, but like something out of a James Bond movie) and explosives. Which seem to work.

    And then there’s my not-fully-worked-out idea to have peole act as guarantors for each other, and not sell any gun to anybody unless a list of ten pre-selected people, at least 3 of the opposite sex, were notified, and didn’t object, or cause the sale to be undone if they did. Now that could mean only that a would-be Stephen Paddock would lie to some other people, but the lie could, and would, get caught. There’s got to be a strong disincentive to being wrong, but not too strong.

    In order to be included on the list of guarantors, a person would have to say, or agree, that the other person buying the gun knows, or would learn, how to use it properly, and that it wouldn’t get stolen or used in a crime. On pain of losing some rights or privileges and/or a significant sum if money if they were wrong. A person could silently take himself off the list and at least temporarily prevent his or her friend from buying a gun. Maybe some more checks and balances are needed.

    Maybe there could be 1 or 2 or 3 alternates. E-mail addresses and telephone numbers can change, for one thing, and people can get sick and/or die without the list being updated.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  59. Someone with a tool and die shop, or maybe sometimes a 3-D printer, could manufacture just about anything, but they won’t sell it. Except maybe to one or two people.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  60. @ Frederick (#57): My impression before this shooting was that the existing law requiring registration & heavy regulation of fully automatic weapons was indeed reasonably capable of being enforced to a meaningful degree without destroying civil liberties: We’re not awash in illegal fully automatic weapons (yet). The language later added to the definition of “machinegun” in the 1934 Act to pick up the conversion kits was, I thought, the same.

    Since learning of bump stocks and trigger cranks as a result of this shooting, and the apparent failure of BATFE to consistently enforce existing law in ways that would require their registration as if they were “machineguns” (which would be tantamount to a ban), I’ve come to the conclusion that BATFE ought to remedy that failure. I’m also less sanguine that the regulations governing conversion kits are actually being enforced consistently, but that too seems to be a management emphasis problem, not a capability-of-enforcement deficit. Forcing all this stuff down to black-market levels is doable and worth doing, I think.

    I agree absolutely that there are indeed some laws that simply are not worth trying to enforce. The Texas sodomy statute struck down in Lawrence v. Texas springs to mind, even though I utterly disagree with Justice Kennedy’s constitutional analysis in that case. Also the Texas six-dildos law — under which possession of six or more dildoes was sufficient to imply intent to “wholesale promote” an “obscene device.” Note that the mere possession of up to five dildoes was therefore presumptively legal in Texas. I suppose one could ask, “Why does any person really need even five dildoes?” But anyway, the six-dildo rule was not being enforced because of the practical difficulties in trying to enforce it as compared to the perception of minimal ongoing harm from its violation.

    On continuing reflection, I better grasp your point about the Say Uncle crowd, and thank you for your patience in helping me do so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  61. Lawrence wAS a gateway decision, in a similar way that miller v California, and all the NFL posting was encouraged once upon a tine by tinker v. Us.

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. @Beldar:I’ve come to the conclusion that BATFE ought to remedy that failure.

    I never heard of bump stocks before the last couple days, and it could very well be that the existing laws could be enforced against them without undue expense or burden.

    I was simply allowing for the possibility that it might not be the sort of thing that can be enforced. I’d leave it to the gun enthusiasts to instruct me on it.

    The fact that I’m hearing so much about bump stocks just now makes me wonder if a bogus media narrative is in the offing, but that’s my cynicism I think.

    Frederick (63491b)

  63. @Beldar:I suppose one could ask, “Why does any person really need even five dildoes?”

    Ask Leviticus that when he returns–what’s the maximum number of legal dildoes society should permit to accomplish the purposes most frequently put forth in support of privacy rights?

    Frederick (63491b)

  64. Relax, its as unprompted as Jimmy kimmel, and nothing will come of it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. @Beldar: Sorry for the chopped-up comments, I could have put them all together.

    I think the analogy I prefer is a law banning encryption software. Encryption software has obvious illegal applications. People write their own, and it costs nothing to distribute, and so meaningfully enforcing it would require methods destructive to civil liberties. And of course people in favor of the ban would say “why do you need such a thing if you’re not planning to do something awful with it”?

    Frederick (63491b)

  66. “I’ve been a recreational shooter my entire life and I’ve always enjoyed shooting full auto. At the same time purchasing a class 3 firearm is outrageously expensive, not to mention it requires a mountain of paperwork sure to give you life-threatening paper cuts. I had bump fired in the past but it was completely uncontrollable, unsafe and unusable. I wanted to find a way to change that, to make bump firing safer and more controlled.” – Jeremiah Cottle

    Cottle is the Slide Fire ‘bump stock’ inventor and patented by Slide Fire. He is from–wait for it… Texas.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2016/08/slide-fire-inventor-jeremiah-cottle/#ixzz4uW6F7cQ4

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. @DCSCA: That’s an interesting article. Looks like his first prototype was made with 2×10, PVC pipe, and duct tape. Let’s get right on banning and regulating the ownership and use of those items so we can ensure no such tragedy happens again.

    “Finally, I sent the stock to the ATF when I had a design that was close to being commercially ready. I was so happy when I got the word that it was approved.”

    Huh, the ATF APPROVED it? Well, maybe they’re all from Texas too.

    “With Slide Fire you still have to pull the trigger each time it fires. The Slide Fire stock does not change the mechanics of the firearm it simply enables the shooter to pull the trigger very rapidly. ”

    Ah, now it’s becoming clear. It doesn’t turn a semi into full-auto, and that’s the ATF approved it.

    Very useful information, DCSCA, thanks.

    Frederick (63491b)

  68. I have found nobody who is furiously opposed to banning these devices.

    Except maybe Jeremiah Cottle.

    But Monday afternoon, sure. Sunday afternoon, maybe not so much.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. @DCSCA:Except maybe Jeremiah Cottle.

    And the ATF, who approved it for sale…

    Frederick (63491b)

  70. @70. It’s work around, Freddo. And unfortunately for the Vegas dead and wounded, it works.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. @72. Bureaucrats, Freddo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. @DCSCA:And unfortunately for the Vegas dead and wounded, it works.

    And as we learned in Boston, so do pressure cookers. There are always going to be ways for people to kill large numbers of innocents. No matter how much freedom you give up that will still be true.

    Frederick (63491b)

  73. @DCSCA:Bureaucrats, Freddo.

    Good thing they won’t be in charge of enforcing any gun laws.

    Frederick (63491b)

  74. @62. Meh, Sammy. Remember back in the day before hijacking and travel terror was in vogue, you’d put on a coat and tie, go to the airport, check in, get a boarding pass, wave to the counter girl, eye the lines of a stew’s legs, walk on the jet w/some carry on and travel with comfort and ease. No security lines. No wanding. No emptying of pockets and assorted hassles. Wasn’t all that long ago. Now it’s a genuine PITA to travel: the few made it as inconvenient as allowable for the many in the name of ‘safety.’ That’s the inevitable track for this problem in America. The arc of common sense will prevail. The auto industry fought against seat belts for years, too. Bad guys will still try to disrupt airplanes and bag guys will still try to shoot people. But the objective is to make it as difficult as possible for either to occur. Like air travelers, gun people will adapt to it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  75. I’m gonna say something really unpopular;

    Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to keep access to military grade firearms within the reach of the common citizen, the laws restricting ownership of fully automatic weapons are necessarily unconstitutional.

    Now, I accept that allowing people to own machine guns (and submachine guns) may be a bad idea. But if it IS a bad idea, a Constitutional Amendment should be passed to allow the government to restrict ownership of such weapons. Once we accept the ‘but these devices are so dangerous we have to weasel around the Constitution’ argument, we have lost the restraints the Constitution was intended to put on the State.

    I don’t own any guns. I don’t force owning any guns. I do own computers, which are powerful tools for spreading speech, totally unforeseen by the men who wrote and voted for the First Amendment.

    And I see vast swathes of idiots calling for prior restraint of speech because some speech makes them feel bad.

    A long gunman, even one who shoots hundreds, as this swine did, does not scare me one tenth as much as a Government that is unconstrained by its own laws.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  76. I would just like to see more people admit that these sorts of massacres are the natural result of the American worldview

    Yes, they are, of course, to the degree that we still distrust statist solutions. That means that some people will do terrible things with their liberty than one likes, but if the “answer” is to dial down liberty, as we see done in other places, then we as a people (still) are not ready.

    And as I pointed out semi-facetiously on another threat, we have better bomb-control. By that I mean that societies that have strict control of guns are not immune to mass casualties, which tend to run to bombs, trunks plowing into crowds, etc. You may, through maniacal state action, clamp down on one set of weapons (e.g. guns, airplanes) but those intent on harm will find another.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  77. *thread

    Kevin M (752a26)

  78. Oh good grief. That’s all we need, yet another stupid law, creating another stupid way to ruin some unlucky persons life. And all for nothing.

    1st off a little background is necessary. The so-called bumpfire-stocks don’t do anything to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle. It doesn’t have any spring, or any magical gizmo that enables faster shooting. Anyone can do the exact same trick by using an unmodified semi-auto rifle and a rifle sling. All that a bump-fire stock does is allow an unsophisticated user to pull off the same stunt with less practice.

    Yes, one might argue that such a stock might possibly increase the effectiveness of bump-firing by improving burst accuracy. But bump-firing is also is a much less effective method of firing a semi-automatic rifle for the purpose of mass murder. So what’s the point to outlawing such a stock?

    Why encourage the anti-gun strategy of goldilocks gun control? Where specious arguments are used to salami slice off yet more of our rights?

    The fact is the only gun control law that might possibly reduce the scale of mass murder by gunfire, is prohibiting any person from possessing more than five rounds of ammunition at any time. Because you don’t need a bumpfire stock, or detachable magazines, or a semiauto rifle for a mass shooting. As little as a single shot shotgun and a haversack of ammo is adequate to slaughter a roomful of unarmed victims, if the murderer practiced fast reloading beforehand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D08sUXRBUHs

    The Las Vegas Villain was a suicidal millionaire, with no criminal record who had weeks if not months to plot his attack. What plausible gun control law could have prevented the massacre? What plausible law of any kind could have stopped him?

    The evil idiot even had a private pilots license and two aircraft. Would it have been any better if he had kamikazied his own plane into a jetliner full of passengers which was taxiing to takeoff position full of fuel?

    Brad (cc95c2)

  79. @ Mr. Schofield (#78): Yours is the “absolutist position,” if I understand you correctly. I understand that position, but I don’t agree with it. Neither, to the best of our knowledge, does a single Justice on the current SCOTUS, nor did Justice Scalia.

    Instead, I think Justice Scalia was right and that you are wrong to presume that existing gun control laws are all unconstitutional, because you’re making assumptions about constitutional interpretation — and in particular, about where it starts and stops — that don’t correspond with what the SCOTUS has been doing for the last century at least with respect to constitutional rights specified in the Bill of Rights.

    I understand that some folks consider that constitutional interpretation by even the likes of Justice Scalia to be just humbug, and insist that any person’s reading of the language of the Constitution is as valid as any other’s. But I don’t, and that’s not been our system. I wouldn’t say your views are unpopular; among some folks, they are quite popular. But I don’t share them, and I don’t hear you to be disputing that they are a minority viewpoint.

    I do commend and thank you, though, for the civil and articulate elaboration of the “absolutist position.” At a minimum, it deserves mention and articulation, and perhaps others will find it more appealing than I do.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  80. Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to keep access to military grade firearms within the reach of the common citizen

    The second amendment calls for a militia of all able-bodied men (which we now read as all able-bodied persons). It was thought that large standing armies were dangerous and relying on the citizenry was preferable. But back then an ocean was a formidable barrier, so now we have a standing army.

    But at times we DO need a militia, which may need heavy weapons. During the LA Riots of ’93, the National Guard had belt-feed machine guns in place covering certain street corners. It seemed to work as a calming tool.

    But a militia does not need access to all weapons all the time. The “well-regulated” part of the militia may include keeping the heavy weapons in the Armory until there is a need. As you said “within reach.” This regulation is itself limited by the ancient right to defend oneself, and perhaps by the right to hunt (which was itself regulated long before the Founding).

    So, weapons suitable for self-defense (which can be of use to a militia), or hunting, are less susceptible to regulation than purely military weapons such as machine guns which are not generally needed for self-defense.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  81. Question: Could Congress pass a law restricting hunting to bow-and-arrow? I’m pretty sure it could. So long as firearms are still legal for self-defense (and the militia) simply regulating the method of hunting wouldn’t impact that. We already have laws about dynamiting fish.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  82. @83. Somehow, don’t sense the last living thoughts of any Vegas gun shot victims was “I’m dying but the Second Amendment lives!”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. A bump stock is no different from a push-up bra: you can get the same effect manually but eventually your hands get tired.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  84. @84 Kevin M

    Fun fact: barring a steel or ceramic plate an arrow will go through kevlar body armor like Michael Moore goes through a Golden Corral.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  85. @83 Kevin M

    You have no right to hunt the king’s Crips and Bloods, just so you know.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  86. Origin of Mexican Carry:

    Massad Ayoob says:
    The [Mexican Carry] term is not perjorative. It arose long ago among gun people. In homage to proud Mexican men of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Beset by trants who stripped them of liberties, including the right to carry guns if they were not part of the political elite, these defiant citizens…. needed to be able to ditch the gun to be retrieved later if they were about to have contact with Federales, and since a holster could not be so quickly ditched and would be prima facie evidence of resistance to tyrants’ law, the holster was dispensed with.
    – The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  87. @78 C.S.P. Schofield

    We aren’t going to restrict your right to post comments on Patterico.com.

    We are going to tax you $200 dollars per post, and the paperwork will take 6-9 months. And periodically we will stop by your house and check that your post and tax stamp are in good order.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  88. @77 DCSCA

    Like when South Park showed the TSA in Cartman’s house? ‘Member?

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  89. @70 Frederick

    Sounds like that Jennifer Lawrence mop movie.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  90. @65 Frederick

    The fact that I’m hearing so much about bump stocks just now makes me wonder if a bogus media narrative is in the offing, but that’s my cynicism I think.
    Frederick (63491b) — 10/3/2017 @ 10:26 pm

    The feds seem to have the political will to prosecute 15 year olds who take nude pictures of themselves. Wouldn’t it be better to limit smart phones to 18+?

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  91. @63 Beldar

    “Son, you expect me to believe that five dildos is your personal supply?”

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  92. @61 Sammy

    Well it’s been quite a week in NYC, NY, my hometown, out there on the edge of the event horizon.

    Sammy Finkleman resurrected East Germany with his gun control proposal.

    Lars Larson said he’d be darned if his wife could have more dildos than he could have bullets. He’s no cuck-servative. Oh, you betcha.

    Well, that’s the news from NYC, where all the guns are super-powerful, all the taxes are good-looking and all the magazines are above average capacity.

    Pinandpuller (29967a)

  93. Good stuff PandP.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  94. I heard Obama legalized bump stocks in 2010. The rotter.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  95. Just ban it already!!!!!!

    That way only the Criminals will have it … like the Shooter.

    ……

    End of the day Laws exist to dissuade but can not prevent.

    So my view is all these Gun Laws are simply that. To dissuade people from owning.

    Not a bad thing IMHO.

    Just wish we’d have laws to dissuade welfare usage, abortions, race pimping, needless wars to feed lobbyists, lying about Trump … stuff like that.

    Poor Biggie (987b85)

  96. Yes we’ve seen the scandal with thevpay to play, regarding licenses in NY state, how even 9 years after hellervit is nearly impossible to acquire a legal firearm,, unless you are David Gregory, in dc.

    narciso (d1f714)

  97. And he’s a freebie:
    https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud

    Now back to those incorruptible us attys who would never abuse their authority

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. @DCSCA:Somehow, don’t sense the last living thoughts of any Vegas gun shot victims was “I’m dying but the Second Amendment lives!”

    Somehow, don’t sense the last living thoughts of any Boston pressure cooker victims was “I’m dying but the United States still grants asylum to Chechens!”

    Somehow, don’t sense the last living thoughts of any French truck attack victims was “I’m dying but France still allows immigration from Tunisia!”

    That’s the problem with waving the bloody shirt, there’s just no end to what you can try to justify.

    Frederick (63491b)

  99. This was the fellow who was caught in that very flawed case involving dsk, mind you the defendant in that instances hired sime top notch investigators including the for Buenos Aires station chief

    narciso (d1f714)

  100. kishnevi (d097a6) — 10/3/2017 @ 7:54 pm

    Please do not do that. I know you mean well, as P pointed out, but it is really preferable for you to respond to HF with in a positive tone, so that when P reads your comment, he will have the benefit of making it his decision to read HF’s comment.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  101. Yes. Let’s just ban all the things. The thing with bump-stock is with a little practice there is a technique that you can learn to achieve similar result using just your finger. I would suppose accuracy would go down but in a terrorism situation, accuracy is not very important. Would make more sense to ban firearms themselves, or some subset, than to ban bump-stocks. Not that I endorse such, just pointing out the folly that trying to ban things from existing requires a much more intrusive state. We have a much bigger problem on our hands in regard to an ill-informed, decadent citizenry who lack the reasoning skills needed to operate a country based on what the founders believed in regarding freedoms and such. Laws are not going to solve our problems.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  102. The real reason to be a heavily armed citizen, which most of us gun nuts are reluctant to admit, is fear of an oppressive government.

    Also fear of the consequences of a government that has abdicated its duty to enforce the law and maintain public order and safety. Antifa, BLM et al.

    I wonder what will happen in Catalonia if the Castellanos insist on maintaining their conquest? Will the Catalans be able to resist? Is there a rifleman behind every blade of grass in Catalonia?

    Fred Z (05d938)

  103. The Las Vegas shooter would not have been able to kill and wound so many people if those money-hungry musicians had not gathered them all in an enclosed space for him like some kind of Judas goats. The terrorists at the Ariana Grande concert, too. Ban concerts!

    nk (dbc370)

  104. There are techniques, and you can use belt loops, or learn to do this with no extra equipment but just a rifle you can brace loosely on your shoulder while holding the vertical foregrip — all true, and all reasons the left will try to ban semi-autos entirely. I will help you fight that fight. I just don’t see why this is a big deal. And if it is, why haven’t you spent your life screaming about the fact that we restrict machine guns?

    Or maybe you have. That would at least be consistent.

    Patterico (572840)

  105. Been meaning to do a post about Catalonia. Remarkable to witness police busting heads to keep people from even voting for independence.

    Patterico (572840)

  106. Do y’all think Trump would veto a ban on bump stocks? I don’t.

    Patterico (572840)

  107. Because the referendum was secured through fraudulent means, and this victory was as legitimate as the first loretta Sanchez contest

    narciso (d1f714)

  108. I would like to read a post by you on Catalonia, P.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  109. Working backwards from here,

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Debradelai/status/915332976032002048

    They pushed this after the local police botched the investigation into the terrorist cell.

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. 39 – “That’s because you hypothesize a sophisticated black market and assume that it will not be policed vigorously. By such standards, why criminalize anything at all?”

    Exactly, That’s why Prohibition was a huge success, the black market never materialized and organized crime and violence was reduced.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  111. One of the mayors deputies defended the cell leader once upon a time, the mayor is openly sympathetic with antifa and the regime in caracas.

    narciso (d1f714)

  112. Now macron is concerned because well Corsicans could revolt among other things, you would think they would welcome a new member of the eu

    narciso (d1f714)

  113. why haven’t you spent your life screaming about the fact that we restrict machine guns?

    I, personally, been kept too busy driving five miles to the nearest suburb, and another five back, to get a can of spray paint which is banned in Chicago.

    nk (dbc370)

  114. Beldar and Kenvin;

    Yes, I am an absolutist. I think that he Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are the two most revolutionary documents ever signed by a sitting legislature…and that that same legislature started weaseling around the restrictions those documents placed on the State before the ink was dry. That doesn’t, in my opinion, make them right, or the SCOTUS Justices who rule against the plain language of the documents right. They may be INEVITABLE, they are not right.

    The cold facts are that the sum total of all the independent shooter mass shooting incidents ever recorded does not even achieve the order of magnitude of the systematic murder accomplished in just one century by governments that previously disarmed their populations. That the political tribe that seems most intent on putting shackles on all of us (for our own good!) is also pushing gun control makes me even more disinclined to listen.

    That the underlying reason for the Amendment – the desire for a well armed militia of the whole – is no longer a factor in our society (which, incidentally, I dispute) does not change the simple fact that if you want a Constitutional constraint changed, an amendment is necessary…or you are throwing the whole document away.

    We have gotten too accustomed to letting the pandering purveyors of panic stampede us into cutting corners because Something Must Be Done Without Delay! A pox on them. If you have a proposal for an Amendment, let us hear it. And if they don’t, then piss on them from a great hight; they are just more Statist scofflaws.

    I wonder how they would react to a proposal of an amendment that said that, aside from Military persons on a Military reservation or outside the borders, the State may not arm its agents with any weapon not available, without restriction, to a citizen.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  115. There are techniques…why haven’t you spent your life screaming about the fact that we restrict machine guns?

    Not sure if this was directed at me but seeing as I referenced techniques…and this still applies to the point in general unless you were responding to some other specific commenter… Maybe because I have a life, I’m not into guns (not that those two things have any relationship), my job has nothing to do with such things. I might as well ask why you haven’t spent your life screaming about accurate telephone bills, fingerprint matchers, military logistics systems, or cyber security. Also, didn’t see my comment as “screaming”, just saying laws are not the solution to many of these problems. Outlaw x and only outlaws will have x. Those who are screaming about laws and such suck the oxygen out of the room to such a degree that the root can’t be addressed. Of course we can’t really say much about the root of this specific problem as very little is known about SP’s motive. That will (hopefully) come out in time.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  116. As long as thugs don’t have access to automatics, I won’t need one.

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  117. it makes you wonder if the corrupt sleazy fbi’s withholding what they know cause in the absence of an explanation it’s easier to focus people’s attentions on banning all the things

    they know there’s always gonna be a next one, so they have plenty of time to wargame new ways to exploit these things

    “The goal is to help people who want to take a given step but may face some barriers,” commented Maya.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  118. narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2017 @ 7:04 am

    You misspelled “shite”

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  119. Yes, I think we’re being distracted because their primary concern is the effect on the Las Vegas tourist industry. Does Trump still have investments in Las Vegas?

    nk (dbc370)

  120. that’s a baseless conspiracy theory Mr. nk and i abjure this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  121. ok, now I know a word that puts comments into moderation.

    narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2017 @ 7:04 am
    You misspelled”sh!t3.”

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  122. It would be naive to dismiss nk’s oservation; things are seldom what they seem. At this point, until something solid is presented, I’m open to the wildest notions.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  123. That is why I used that word instead.

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. Remember gun grabbing paranoia? Ammo was non-existent. Manufacturers couldn’t keep up with demand. Especially .223.

    Wal-Mart sold Federal for 40 bucks then. Now it’s $32 And the extra lines are still producing. Gun sales down 9% since Obama left.

    Just saying….cui bono.

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  125. this is a thing?

    maybe we should do that renaissance thing again

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  126. Creating demand for things people don’t need and don’t do them any good at all when they get them is what American businesses do best.

    nk (dbc370)

  127. 118 – “That the political tribe that seems most intent on putting shackles on all of us (for our own good!) is also pushing gun control makes me even more disinclined to listen.”

    Bravo.

    That same political tribe is celebrating football players taking a knee to expose an “epidemic” of incidents where the authorities are willfully shooting unarmed men of a disfavored group.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  128. “Creating demand for things people don’t need and don’t do them any good at all when they get them is what American businesses do best.”

    That’s a blood libel, lol !

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  129. and Tina Delgado Francisco Franco is alive, ALIVE!!!

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  130. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking that after DiFi gets her ban on “bump stocks” she can get back to work on her Catholic ban.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  131. narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2017 @ 7:33 am

    Yep!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  132. #132 was for all the SoCal KHJ Real Don Steele fans…

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  133. i suppose if we have to move forward in some way then Florida should annex Puerto Rico once the bondholders are given the bad news

    Florida understands that kind of tourism/agricultural economy well

    but by no means should that filthy corrupt hateful little island ever be its own state, much less its own country

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  134. It doesn’t really matter whether Trump still has investments in Las Vegas. Sheldon Adelson does. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/10/03/sheldon-and-miriam-adelson-met-with-trump-amid-las-vegas-shooting-aftermath.html

    From the link:

    The day after the Las Vegas Strip massacre, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, President Donald Trump turned to two of his most trusted supporters [that’s Mr. and Mrs. Sheldon Adelson] to get their advice on how to start the healing process for the victims of Sunday’s tragedy which claimed 59 lives and injured over 500, FOX Business has learned.

    “Start the healing process”. Right. Of the casinos’ lost profits. And please note that it’s Fox.

    nk (dbc370)

  135. And if you’ll recall that in the Boston bombing the FBI took the guy who knew the most about the conspiracy to a secret house and shot him; and in the nightclub shooting kept the wife of the shooter incommunicado for three(?) months, then maybe my “conspiracy theory” is not all that wild.

    nk (dbc370)

  136. Bump stocks might be useful in amateurs vs amateurs gun battle to put volume of fire in the general direction of “the other guy(s)”. Versus a pro a bump stock would get you killed
    Like those videos from the Iraq conflicts where everyone shouts Allah Akbar and some guy jumps out into the alley and sprays 26 out of 30 up in the air and falls dead at #27.

    Or they are useful for shooting up a crowd.
    I hate giving an inch to the left on this because one day soon CA is going to make me use a 5 round fixed magazine that requires permission from God to remove and exchange.

    steveg (e8c34d)

  137. the corrupt stinky low-class FBI’s above the law

    they’re not to be trusted that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  138. And just for fun, a guy shooting with the BATF approved “bump fire” add-on that I mentioned, and Beldar referenced, above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWvKIdY0sSc And his wife complaining about the noise. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  139. 132 was for all the SoCal KHJ Real Don Steele fans…

    My sister was one of the regular dancers on The Real Don Steele (TV) Show.

    Sam Riddle, Charlie Tuna, Humble Harv……good times and at one point I think over 60% share of the SoCal radio audience.

    But that contest to chase down Don and his $20 bill was a bad idea…

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  140. And this is one of the guys in Congress whom we should listen to when they tell us what kind of guns we can have. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/politics/tim-murphy-abortion/index.html

    nk (dbc370)

  141. by no means should that filthy corrupt hateful little island ever be its own state, much less its own country

    Agree on the former. Disagree on the latter. Fix their messed up power grid as a going away present and cut them loose. South Orlando is becoming Puerto Rico north with the free flow of “US citizens”. Let them live in and fix their own mess before they turn Florida blue and drag us, and possibly the US, down with them.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  142. Creating things people need and do them good when they get them is what capitalism does best.

    Fyp

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  143. I won’t argue about capitalism, but I said “American businesses”. Bought a fidget spinner yet? How about a Starbucks pumpkin spice latte with soy milk, no whip? A pack of Marlboros? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  144. Paddock was into video poker but live players use it to hone skills. If he was into high stakes his target could have been the Hotel/casino ownership. Losses or personal grudge? He seemed only get excited about fonance/bizness..

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  145. ok I can go with that Mr. Farleigh

    but a decision must be taken

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  146. 136, your not too far off Happy, in fact that is similar to the Krauthammer plan for District of Columbia (annexation into Maryland for Congressional Purposes). You are sparing the nation 2 far-left Senators however you are saddling the receiving State with additional burdens (which were admittedly worse in the 1980s-1990s in DC proper). I don’t think Florida could hang with that on its own. Instantaneous spread-out (e.g. not FL) for those who want to be on the lower 48 followed by granting nationhood to the remainers as with Frederick’s plan would work better.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  147. Brian O’Connell is an entertainment biggie connected to Harvest 91 with Casino ties. Beaster makes a stretch..
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock-may-have-first-planned-to-attack-chance-the-rapper-and-lorde-concert

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  148. Now, dspengler, Nigel fatage and Michael savage, holds an opposite view re Barcelona,,so its not unaminous

    narciso (d1f714)

  149. Farage and spengler, yes todachev who thought there would be Chechen near the golden arches.

    narciso (d1f714)

  150. But let’s parse both our claims:

    Mine: Creating demand for things people don’t need and don’t do them any good at all when they get them is what American businesses do best.
    Yours: Creating things people need and do them good when they get them is what capitalism does best.

    Interpretation 1: “Nobody does it better.” I agree with your claim about capitalism and maintain that it is also true of my claim about American businesses.

    Interpretation 2: “Of all the things that capitalism and American businesses do, that is the thing they do best.” I disagree with your claim. Of all the things capitalism does, what it does best is concentrate wealth into the hands of a relative few. As to my claim, I maintain that of all the things American businesses do, what they do best is get us to part with our money in exchange for frivolous, worthless, or outright harmful things.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. Go ahead. It will have little or no effect on the next mass shooter. A determined psychopath will identify the tools and techniques necessary to accomplish his task. Paddock could just have easily killed himself and many more by crashing his private aircraft into the 20,000 person crowd. A fresh look at whether bump stocks, cranks, etc create weapons that should be banned or highly regulated is a fine idea but we should acknowledge that the root cause of this attack lies in the shooter not the weapon and/or its modifications.

    crazy (d99a88)

  152. To make that ban effective we’ll also have to outlaw belt loops on pants. Bump firing technique has been around for years the stock just makes it easier to master the technique but it is not necessary as shown here all you need is a leg, finger and belt loop. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY

    Patrick (8d0d1a)

  153. Adelson who was hounded by the justice department, a villain in all but name in berensons the wolves,
    Was found to commit thoughtcrime by buying the Vegas journal.

    narciso (d1f714)

  154. I assume everyone knows of Trumps Casino interests..

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  155. NBC News attending to the important issues of the day.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  156. A determined adversary will find ways, consider the amman Jordan hotel bombings

    narciso (d1f714)

  157. Oh about that darnley two as #, Emily litella.

    narciso (d1f714)

  158. 147… if there’s a market for it, the product will be delivered. Even KaBooooom! breakfast cereal.

    People don’t want it, they won’t buy it, producers of product will explore other markets. If still no interest, the product disappears, case solved.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  159. Boss Radio, harkin!

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  160. I’m in an unusual position for this debate, as a liberal, because I take a close-to-absolutist position on the first amendment, which (to me) means that as a matter of principle I have to accept a close-to-absolutist position on the second amendment (because there’s nothing in the text of the amendments which would allow me to treat them differently), *even though* I’m part of the crowd who are culturally uncomfortable (at best) with guns.

    I accept that the government can ban personal possession of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, on the basis of the danger such pose to the community. I can apply that to fully automatic guns, but it requires a stretch — they’re dangerous if used, but the others are dangerous if poorly maintained, and I think that’s an important distinction.

    But a lot of the things members of my political tribe support — I get why they think it’s good policy, I even agree in many cases that it would be good policy, but it’s not constitutional — and if it *is* constitutional, then so is restricting speech on the internet.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  161. It will have little or no effect on the next mass shooter. A determined psychopath will identify the tools and techniques necessary to accomplish his task. Paddock could just have easily killed himself and many more by crashing his private aircraft into the 20,000 person crowd.

    Very hard to argue to with this notion. The first immediate parallels that came to mind after hearing about Las Vegas were Charles Whitman, Bataclan, the Virginia Tech lunatic and Tim McVeigh.

    I suppose a counterargument would be that decreased availability of firearms in general *but especially “assault rifles”* would make this sort of thing much rarer in the US. Having lived on an island with strict gun laws, low levels of gun ownership, and no immediate access to gun shops or trade centres, I’m skeptical of that position; at one point some years ago the per capita firearm homicide rate (FHR) was twice and ten times the FHRs of the US and UK, respectively.

    JP (f1742c)

  162. First, too all commenters, including a great many I haven’t referenced specifically below: This is a genuinely entertaining, educational, and stimulating discussion that has included sharply conflicting opinions civilly expressed. I’m not crying “unicorn,” but I am saying, “Wow, lookit that!” (So glad personally for this blocker script!) Thank you all, let’s sprain our arms patting ourselves on the back a moment.

    @ Pin (#94): I will only say that I have always tried to obey Texas law.

    @ felipe (#103): What a thoughtful suggestion! You may be a natural mediator by nature, which is a skill I’ve increasingly come to appreciate throughout my life and, especially, professional career.

    @ Patterico (#107): I too respect consistency, especially civilly expressed. Re Trump vetoing a ban, I think he would sign it and claim credit for it as (see above) an aggressive move to enforce existing law.

    @ Mr. Schofield (#118): Some of the SCOTUS members throughout history whom I most respect have been “near-absolutists.” That’s how I’d identify myself in general, and with enthusiasm on some particular constitutional rights. But just as I’m okay with the possible power of the government to enforce prior restraint against disclosure of troopship movements in wartime, I’m okay with the government enforcing reasonable regulations against civilians possessing weapons with this rate of fire on an unregistered basis. I totally get the whole slippery-slope concept, which is why I described treating bump stocks like conversion kits under existing law as “stepping back onto the ledge [not a big plateau by any means] that we’ve carved out in the slippery slope.” Like Patterico I commend you on your consistency, and I’ve enjoyed this discussion, in which I’m content to rest my own case with due respect to you and those who share your views.

    @ nk (#117): When are we going to have a civil conversation as a society about the dangers of spray paint cans? How many more such tragedies will we have to witness?

    @ crazy (#155), who wrote: “Go ahead. It will have little or no effect on the next mass shooter.” Well put and so stipulated, if we assume the next shooter is as calculating and clever as this one. Someone like this guy or a Timothy McVeigh or a Charles Whitman is going to find a way to set a new record; that would be foolish to doubt. Let’s hope the proportion of smart psychopaths to self-destructive psychopaths doesn’t shift too far toward the former too fast. BUT: I don’t think that is the principal inquiry, or that it ends all inquiry, if the subject being debated is: “Should we treat bump stocks differently than we treat conversion kits under current law?

    @ Patrick (#156), who wrote, “Bump firing technique has been around for years the stock just makes it easier to master the technique but it is not necessary.” Your comment is representative of the most common objecting being voiced by those here who are supporting the notion that bump stocks ought not be treated like conversion kits. Again, so stipulated and well expressed. Again, I don’t think that’s dispositive, for the same reasons I mentioned just above. (I don’t deny that it’s relevant.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  163. I think I can guess the affiliation…

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-it-strange-that-we-have-heard.html

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  164. @ aphrael (#165), who posted while I was compiling my own long set of responses in #167: You have a remarkable and worthy commitment to intellectual honesty, which this whole comment reflects, and which makes your opinions much more interesting and persuasive to me in general. Another addition to an entertaining thread!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  165. I’m not sure how much you can infer from party registration. I’m currently registered as a Republican, for example.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  166. Beldar: thank you for the kind words. :)

    It is people like you, and Patterico, and Leviticus, and DRJ, whose intellectual honesty and integrity keeps me here. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  167. One more response, to CFarleigh (#119), re screaming or not screaming: You make some fine points about how much of the debate on these issues is indeed the result of deliberate gas-pouring-on-the-fires by advocates on the far left. I don’t think that’s what our host was doing (nor did you necessarily so imply). I’d simply add to his comment: During the continuing discussions over gun control over the last several decades, well-educated and civil advocates on all sides have, for good and honest reasons, discussed the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and the other bits and pieces of law and regulation that collectively comprise our existing gun control laws intended to specifically govern “machineguns” aka fully-automatic fire. Many, many — probably even most — articulate advocates have been aware of the details of those particular laws, especially on the anti-gun control side. And like him, I can’t recall hearing very many of those advocates investing much heat or passion, or investing any time or effort at all, in arguing for the repeal of the existing laws and regulations on “machineguns.”

    There are absolutely, positively, exceptions to that: Mr. Schofield (#118) is a good such example, and there are surely other consistent absolutists who’ve been contributing their voices. But even among the pool of Second Amendment enthusiasts, they’re in a very distinct minority that doesn’t include anyone on the SCOTUS. That the large majority of Second Amendment enthusiasts haven’t been urging repeal of the existing laws and regs on “machineguns” is indeed worth noting, I’d submit, especially for purposes of discussing how the public, and pro-gun segments within it, are likely to react to a decision either to treat bump stocks like conversion kits under existing law or to continue to omit them from any registration or regulation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  168. aphrael;

    May I offer a sop to your conscience? The Second Amendment speaks of bearing arms. Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons, as theoretically used on a battlefield (as opposed to in a terror attack) require delivery systems that are crew served. Thus, on person may not ‘bear’ them in any useful sense. Similarly, the most really effective fully automatic weapons (full machine guns, or the modern gatlings) are also crew served (Yes, various Action Heroes of the movies have been shown single-handedly firing belt fed this and that. Hollywood lies.). The case against submachine guns and assault rifles (never assault weapons; that is a bullshit category without definition) is weaker, but they really aren’t used in crimes all that often. They’re hard to hide, and the cops tend to go full bore ‘Patton in the south of France’ on people who have full auto weapons. It ain’t worth the trouble.

    I believe (though I don’t expect you to) that the common citizen, in full possession of his rights, should be able to buy without hinderance anything that any agent of the State may carry, and any weapon that one might expect a non-specialist Private foot soldier to carry.

    But I’m a crank.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  169. 118. C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37) — 10/4/2017 @ 7:13 am

    The cold facts are that the sum total of all the independent shooter mass shooting incidents ever recorded does not even achieve the order of magnitude of the systematic murder accomplished in just one century by governments that previously disarmed their populations.

    I think laws that make it impossible to exist “off the grid” are worse.

    Talking abot an armed populatiopn doesn’t make any sense. If they are to mean anything it’s got to be able to able too stand up to the government, and that means the population needs an effective air force or anti-aircraft missiles. This is not the general defense we have these days against tyranny.

    Arms didn’t help the Kurds against Saddam Hussein. They were killed in the 11980s, and in the 1990s, there was the no-fly zoe, imposed by the United States. Arms didn’t help much in Syriaa.

    Total lack of arms may make it worse, but resistance may also make it worse. The real genocide of the Rohingya in Burma started this year when some outsiders started a bit of an armed revolt.

    The idea of arms being able to stand up to tyranny is a fantasy – and if it does mean anythin, it must be fully able to confront everything the military of the central government has, and in fact they need not just automati weapons, but Anti-aircraft missiles and more, maybe even nuclear weapons. And also in such a case, it’s not pre-determined that the resisters will themselves respect human rights.

    So therefore, checks and balances, multiple military organziatitions and a less powerful goernment, are the way to go.

    I wonder how they would react to a proposal of an amendment that said that, aside from Military persons on a military reservation or outside the borders, the State may not arm its agents with any weapon not available, without restriction, to a citizen.

    Well, if you define military reservation somewhat broadly, that might not be so bad as long as the trend is toward everyone not having too strong weapons, including local and state police.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  170. And also, to Brad (#81): I cheerfully accept, and thank you for, your correction of my statement (#7) that a spring was involved in the bump stock. I know I’ve read that somewhere; but I’m persuaded you have the right of this, at least as to some of the popular brands and designs.

    Do you believe the existing law and regulation on conversion kits is also “another stupid law, creating another stupid way to ruin some unlucky persons life[, a]nd all for nothing”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  171. Random nasty thought; maybe we’d see less of this kind of crap if the people who did this kind of thing were reasonably certain that they would be publicly shot or otherwise mitigated? I’m of mixed mind about capitol punishment. On the one hand, prosecutors who withhold evidence from the defense should be tried for attempted murder. If something serious is not done about that kind of thing, then I am deeply uncomfortable with allowing the State the authority to execute. OTOH, why the pluperfect fuck are we still paying for the feeding and housing of Charlie Manson? Would not society be better served if we sold hunting licenses and gave him a fifteen minute head start?

    The State cannot be trusted with sole possession of legal weapons. History shows this again and again.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  172. @Sammy Finkelman,

    I disagree. The presence of legal arms in the population invokes a basic fact of human behavior; if you bully enough people long enough, sooner or later you will end up facing an angry man with a gun. Tyrannies are not run from tanks and aircraft. They are run from desks. Saddam could disregard the Kurds because he could live where a mass of a different ethnicity would like his policies vis-a-vis the Kurds. Yes, modern military weapons make armed rebellion harder. But where it is at least possible, it remains a check on tyrant behavior.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  173. The Akins Accelerator 1 did come with a spring, and it was the one disapproved by the BATF’s second ruling. The second version, the Accelerator 2, currently approved by the BATF, is springless.

    I hesitate to call it a bump stock because it looks like a foregrip to me and “stock” creates an image of a shoulder stock. On the other hand, a foregrip is part of the stock ….

    nk (dbc370)

  174. I concur with Beldar, this thread has been a serious and productive exchange of ideas and views, that, while I contributed nothing, I have received so much in return for the time I spent here. Thank you, everyone. I could get used to this.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  175. If I give the mob Barabbas I bet they will forget all about this Jesus guy.

    Pinandpuller (0de610)

  176. @ nk (#176): Fascinating, thank you! Do you have the sense that there is an established regulatory jurisprudence — some reason to go along with the rhyme — which explains that BATFE has been doing with these applications? And if the intent were simply to subject to registration requirements all weapons capable of delivering fully-automatic firing rates, do you have any sense of how that might be better expressed in law and regulation?

    I’m basically just asking you to do all the legal and factual research necessary to solve this problem, but you’re up to it. 😉

    (Seriously, thanks for the time & effort you’re obviously putting in.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  177. *what BATFE has been doing, not “that”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  178. Arms didn’t help the Kurds against Saddam Hussein.

    Oh I don’t know about that. Kurdish militancy was and has been fairly effective as far as Middle Eastern guerrilla forces go. Saddam never managed to subdue the various Kurdish militant outfits (oddly enough they outlasted his regime) and deployment of Iraqi conscripts and pro-Baghdad Kurdish reserves to the fractious and often barren north was apparently a demoralising experience.

    JP (f1742c)

  179. @101. Childish, if not flippant, Freddo. When used correctly, a pressure cooker cooks food. When used correctly, a gun w/a bump stock sprays bullets— well, you know the drill. The arc of common sense is not in your favor.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  180. @77 Like air travelers, gun people will adapt to it.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2017 @ 12:16 am

    Take a large pot. Add a frog. Bring to a slow boil. I’ve seen that recipe before and it wasn’t from happyfeet.

    Not unlike Fugu, when that dish is improperly prepared the chef’s whole family dies.

    Pinandpuller (0de610)

  181. @158.Ben, so thrilled to hear Mister Las Vegas, Wayne Newton, donated all of $100,000 to the Vegas fund!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  182. @183- PP- there’s a call for you at the red courtesy phone.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  183. 147 – “I won’t argue about capitalism, but I said “American businesses”. Bought a fidget spinner yet? How about a Starbucks pumpkin spice latte with soy milk, no whip? A pack of Marlboros?”

    Of your three examples I heartily disagree with the last two…it’s demand pushing sales and those products are duplicated worldwide by foreign suppliers. The former I am completely unfamiliar with…..but freedom of choice always trumps the alternative.

    And if you think frivolous merchandising/buying is unique to the USA, I urge you to travel more.

    As to creating garbage and forcing citizens to buy it, see Soviet Russia……or Obamacare.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  184. Obamacare’s same as communism

    happyfeet (6a3e02)

  185. @ nk & harkin: Advertisers and marketers endeavor to completely access the entire purchasing power of their subjects which can be pried loose from them, including that portion which represents “objectively bad judgments.” They’ve occupied that economic-ecologic niche with increasing effectiveness since long before the printing press.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  186. Of all the things capitalism does, what it does best is concentrate wealth into the hands of a relative few.

    Hugo Chavez’s daughter and the ruling elite of most communist countries disagree with you.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  187. Arms didn’t help the Kurds against Saddam Hussein.

    He dropped chemocal wepons on them.

    Now the question would be, I guess, what prevented him from finishing them off between 1988 and 1990?

    181. JP (f1742c) — 10/4/2017 @ 12:03 pm

    Oh I don’t know about that. Kurdish militancy was and has been fairly effective as far as Middle Eastern guerrilla forces go. Saddam never managed to subdue the various Kurdish militant outfits (oddly enough they outlasted his regime)

    Well, of course they did. They were protected by the United States after 1991. Saddam Hussein could not send his military there, or his air force, or anything.

    Saddam Hussein, in an effort to make the best of abad situation for him, decidd to let a small portion of the territory outside his control go to al Qaeda. Ths was later to be the germ for al Qaeda in Iraq, and eventually ISIS.

    and deployment of Iraqi conscripts and pro-Baghdad Kurdish reserves to the fractious and often barren north was apparently a demoralising experience.

    Saddam Hussein limited his use of chemical weapons. Was it because he dropped it only on territory that had completely slipped out of his control? In ny case they would not have stood up to him after 1991 without the United States Air Force. The Shiites in the south did’t get that help.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  188. Thank you, Beldar, but it’s mostly stuff I picked up at Say Uncle. I did defend a machine gun case in state court a long time ago, but it was decided on Fourth Amendment grounds.

    According to the ATF (that’s what it seems to call itself), Regulation 7.2.4 , it’s recommended but not required for manufacturers to submit a design and prototype to the ATF in advance for “classification”. I also know that at some point, the ATF’s determination can be challenged in Federal District Court.

    nk (dbc370)

  189. 189. That Hugo Chavez’s daughter has wealth is, I think, an unpublishable secret in Venezuela.

    Sammy Finkelman (f1bb90)

  190. Everything the founders feared from standing armies (and their rough equivalents, militarized police and alphabet agencies) has come to pass.

    But I don’t like the bye bye bump stock push a bit, an not a little bit because it smells like a coordinated PR solution being spun out to seem like something is being done. Throwing the gun-conrol mob a bone to keep from being devoured entirely….or win elections.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  191. Beldar, in RE: 167. My comment was not addressed at your belief that the central question is: “Should we treat bump stocks differently than we treat conversion kits under current law?” I am not knowledgeable enough on the finer points of the ’86 law to debate it but certainly agree it’s a fine idea to take a look at whether it should be amended or interpreted differently – I even said so. It’s a good debate with strong arguments on both sides but it’s difficult for me to see why semiauto weapons that simulate automatic fire should be treated differently than fully automatic ones so I’m listening.

    My two cents, in response to our host’s contention that bump stocks are as good as gone, was that we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the weapons and/or their modifications are not the root cause of the attack. We can ban or regulate the scary stuff that people do to modify firearms but another rotten apple is always going to come along and wreck it for the rest by using legal means for illegal ends.

    Trying to identify the threat(s) walking among us without giving away our remaining civil liberties is the question of our times and I agree a subject for another thread.

    crazy (d99a88)

  192. “But I don’t like the bye bye bump stock push a bit, an not a little bit because it smells like a coordinated PR solution being spun out to seem like something is being done. Throwing the gun-conrol mob a bone to keep from being devoured entirely….or win elections.”

    I’ll never forget the look on Feinstein’s face at her press conference to declare victory over assault weapons’ manufacturers when a reporter asked her how she felt that the manufacturers were already selling assault rifles that complied with her new law.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  193. The Arab oil sheiks are a better example than Chavez’s daughter, if only because they’re wealthier and have been so for a longer time. Ok, what despots and dictators do best is concentrate wealth in themselves. It doesn’t mean that capitalists don’t do likewise.

    nk (dbc370)

  194. Ghost Gunner in Austin will sell you a CNN mill and an unfinished lower receiver
    The software is open source.
    You can crank out an AR15 lower in an hour.
    It isn’t necessary to register a homemade AR15 and you can buy a complete upper from somewhere like Bravo Company, Spikes, etc
    Uppers are not “the gun” so you don’t have register anything.
    California is going to demand registration in 2018 and also demand registration of large purchases of ammunition and I think I’m also going to have to surrender my old 30 round magazine.
    I’m generally law abiding, but my guess is that some of my friends will have lost their magazines in a boating incident.

    I’m a bad shot, so I go to cheaper than dirt and buy 1000 rounds.

    Guns were never in my life until California told me that they’re in a ongoing effort to ban AR15 type modular rifles.

    steveg (2c90e9)

  195. Re Beldar 172:
    And like him, I can’t recall hearing very many of those advocates investing much heat or passion, or investing any time or effort at all, in arguing for the repeal of the existing laws and regulations on “machineguns.”

    I would suggest that is because while doing so may be intellectually defensible, it is not politically so. For people with other things to do besides argue, it’s opening yourself up to a giant time sink. I agree there is a parallel here between banning machine guns to banning bump stocks. But just because someone didn’t inject themselves into a vigorous defense of the right to own a machine gun, they somehow lose their objection to banning kick stocks is itself illogical. My general objection is to the banning of any of the things, be those things guns, bullets, pot, heroin, Taylor Swift albums, what have you. Even tanks and bazookas for that matter. Granted, the horse has left the barn to a big extent here but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t close the gate.

    Also note in regard to the first and last two items, I do feel it is well within the responsibility of government to regulate, to a limited degree, the ownership of significantly lethal weapons to keep them out of the hands of those with proven violent criminal behavior and/or significant mental instability.

    CFarleigh (5b282a)

  196. COC mill

    steveg (2c90e9)

  197. The Shiites in the south did’t get that help.

    There was a Anglo-American (and I think once upon a time French) NF zone in a portion of the Iraqi south prior to 2003 as well.

    JP (f1742c)

  198. CNC mill.
    F the autofill

    steveg (2c90e9)


  199. It doesn’t mean that capitalists don’t do likewise.

    That’s not what you stated at first. You moved the goal posts. Your first statement was: “Of all the things capitalism does, what it does best is concentrate wealth into the hands of a relative few.” You stated the economic theory called “capitalism” concentrated the wealth, not the capitalists. Then you flip-flopped and blamed the capitalists themselves and not the system.

    First of all capitalism is the only system under which if you work hard, do well, invent something, improve something or in any way create wealth you are allowed to keep it. Under socialism or communism whatever wealth you create is deemed to belong to the state and is confiscated. Under democracy the “mob” will vote it away from you and under any other form of despotism from kings to dictators they’ll just take it.

    The very idea of individual property rights is primarily a capitalist concept. Oh, and a Christian one too but I imagine that’s too radical to be spoken aloud nowadays.

    Rev.Hoagie® (6bbda7)

  200. Is this shooter sounding more and more like the character known only as “D-Fens” played by Michael Douglas in the movie, “Falling Down“?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  201. They’ve occupied that economic-ecologic niche with increasing effectiveness since long before the printing press.”

    Absolutely agree – my biggest beef with the original comment was that it singled out the US of A…..it just seemed to echo so much the “Murica!” comments I see in social media.

    Go into any market and designate those things which people need to buy and those they don’t……have at it, anyone. I prefer that the customers decide which items the store warrants re-stocking.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  202. @ CFarleigh, who wrote (#198):

    But just because someone didn’t inject themselves into a vigorous defense of the right to own a machine gun, they somehow lose their objection to banning kick stocks is itself illogical.

    Granted, and clearly put. Ditto your time sink comment. Thanks for taking the time to write so clearly.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  203. @ harkin (#204): I have in mind an imaginary poster in ancient Rome promoting the virtues of having at least seven differently sized dildoes in every household. 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  204. bill ayres supports second amendment. see him on alex jones show supporting guns for black people so they can shoot back and attacking establishment liberals who want to disarm black people.

    blacks armed (156c51)

  205. Following Trump’s victory Patterico’s seemingly principled opposition turned into a deranged obsession with constantly whining about Trump even on the rare occasion he does something good.

    Now we see the real truth – you were never opposed to Trump’s authoritarianism, just angry your own brand isn’t in effect. Disgusting.

    StarkChoice (a1fb0f)

  206. ” rare occasion he does something good”

    You mean when he takes advice, then gets the f#ck out of the way. I hope he’s recyclable.

    Ben burn (c770f4)

  207. The reality is that the rate of fire of a semi-auto firearm is a function of how fast it cycles, and how fast it resets its trigger. The bump stock just allows a novice a bit of an advantage in getting his finger back on the trigger, something that can also be trained for.

    Its a dumb gimmick, not a wonder weapon.

    SPQR (240837)

  208. @ StarkChoice (#208): Thanks for the drive-by off-topic fact-free insult to our host. (Not really. That was me being snarky.) Rage much?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  209. I plead innocent, Hoagie. It was harkin who “moved the goalposts” from American businesses to capitalism to an individual, Chavez’s daughter. Would you be happier if instead of “capitalists”, I said John D. Rockefeller?

    nk (dbc370)

  210. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to ban a device used by the Las Vegas shooter that makes semi-automatic weapons fire more rapidly.

    Legislation to ban bump stocks has gathered bipartisan support rapidly over the past few days in the wake of the shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday.

    Curbelo, a centrist, hopes to file a bill in the next day or two, spokeswoman Joanna Rodriguez said Wednesday.

    who’s shocked to learn this freed0m-hating monkeydunk’s a dues-paying member of cowardly war hero John McCain’s proto-fascist Soros-sponsored Republican Mainstreet Partnership

    not me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  211. *freedom*-hating monkeydunk i mean

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  212. Current posting on Slide Fire website:

    “We have decided to temporarily suspend taking new orders in order to provide the best service with those already placed. Please check back frequently to place your order. Thank you.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  213. . “It was harkin who “moved the goalposts” from American businesses to capitalism to an individual, Chavez’s daughter. Would you be happier if instead of “capitalists”

    Nonsense – I addressed each issue and added more. If all you gleaned from that was Chavez’s daughter, that’s on you.

    Hoagie, you nailed it.

    harkin (fd5d8b)

  214. @ SPQR, who wrote (#210): “It’s a dumb gimmick, not a wonder weapon.”

    Yes, no doubt. But it does indeed allow novices, or those who haven’t invested the time and skill to develop the personal skills, to achieve those fire rates. It has no other purpose or use, indeed degrades performance (accuracy) for other applications, I gather. Given those things, factoring in the compelling state interests regarding these rates of fire from a single weapon and the whole least-restrictive means calculation as applied in that matrix, then: Dumb gimmick or not, I think it’s within the existing law’s requirements for machinegun registration as currently applied to conversion kits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  215. (And constitutionally so.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  216. Beldar, I strongly disagree. The existing statutes and regulations regarding full auto firearms are not based on “rates” and the existing NFA of 1934 is a constitutional hot mess. Example are the regs on short barreled rifles, see this paper http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Dcruz_FINAL.pdf

    SPQR (a3a747)

  217. Another example of how ridiculous the ATF interpretation of NFA of 1934, a photo of a registered machine gun: http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/02/25/registering_my_fingers/

    SPQR (a3a747)

  218. “high-powered military assault rifle useful for no purpose other than slaughtering small babies by the hundreds!!1!!”

    No, the liberals use forceps and suction for that!

    yoda jr (310909)

  219. “The Court can clean up a cause of America’s crisis in confidence in our democracy, protect our elections from wildly partisan ‘bulk’ gerrymandering, and return control of our elections to the people,” McCain and Whitehouse said in a joint statement on Tuesday. “We hope the Court will.”

    “the people” meaning the ones what voted for your disgraceful cowardly lying war hero ass cause you promised to repeal obamacare?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  220. The Dr administration want keen on the first anpmendment (hello FCC act) the second amendment, or recent the third.

    narciso (d1f714)

  221. Sort of off-topic, but here’s the best sentence I claim to have crafted today, in the different but not wholly unrelated context of Justice Ginsburg’s comments in response to Justice Gorsuch’s “Where in the Constitution …?” musings during oral argument in the pending redistricting case:

    The whole notion of a “living, breathing Constitution” is like the notion of a universal solvent: If you ever created either of them, you’d instantly learn that it cannot possibly be contained.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  222. sweet christian jesus but this is creepy and unfunny

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  223. The Supreme Court has really only ruled on two gun cases — Heller and MacDonald, avoiding the Second Amendment issue in Voisine and denying cert in Peruta — and the standard seems to be intermediate scrutiny in some aspects of RKBA and strict scrutiny in some others. The Seventh Circuit’s Decision in Moore v. Madigan is probably the most RKBA friendly ruling we’ve gotten from the federal courts. Overwhelmingly, courts have been upholding gun control laws across the country, despite Heller and MacDonald.

    The winning battles for RKBA are still in Congress and the legislatures. The Second Amendment, in its present stare decisis state, is a banner to carry but not law that can be relied on for gun owners.

    nk (dbc370)

  224. @ my respected friend (I feel like a congress-critter, except I’m sincere) SPQR (#219), who wrote,

    The existing statutes and regulations regarding full auto firearms are not based on “rates” and the existing NFA of 1934 is a constitutional hot mess.

    Agreed as to the first part, see #7 above re “single function of the trigger” in the statutory language.

    I share our host’s general skepticism about legislative histories, but that’s language that was a compromise in 1934, probably reached in part to sidestep arguments about using fire rates instead, don’t you think?

    But I still see room for legitimate agency (here BATFE) interpretation (omg we’re getting into Chevron!) of the word “function,” or perhaps the phrase “single function,” in a way that can include the trigger being jerked back and forth onto the finger rather than the finger being jerked back and forth onto the trigger. You don’t? I’m listening and you might persuade me.

    You could try to control firing rates indirectly in other ways and with other kinds of definitions.

    As for the constitutionality of the 1934 Act, I don’t pretend to have done any looking into that beyond reading (and several times re-reading) Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller, where he carefully and properly notes that that constitutionality question was not then before the Court and hadn’t been definitively resolved, but then proceeds to mock Breyer in ways that only make sense if Scalia was presuming the Act’s constitutionality. I’d agree that constitutionality is still not definitively resolved, but of course the presumption is for constitutionality, and the length of time it’s been on the books isn’t dispositive, but remains relevant. You may have in mind some other wrinkle of that opinion, or other cases, that I’m not focusing on, and I’d be happy to read your further thinking about the hot mess, for I confess to being unaware of it. (Not a denial it exists!)

    And what’s your take on the conversion kits?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  225. @ nk (#227), who wrote as part of a very perceptive comment: “The Second Amendment, in its present stare decisis state, is a banner to carry but not law that can be relied on for gun owners.Amen. Definitely needs more work to develop some broader and more reliable stare decisis/precedential reliability, but we’re sure better off there than pre-Heller.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  226. I wonder if any of the medical a will follow up with the ATF and Obama who approved these bump stocks? What possible interest could they have in promoting these!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  227. @ SPQR, re my #228: I apologize for posting that, especially asking what you meant about the hot mess, before following the links you provided.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  228. And now having skimmed the HJL&PP article you linked, it looks like it supports the propositions that there’s some disarray among the circuits on selection and application of the scrutiny standards (typical), and plenty of “infirmities” in the regulatory regime (a criticism of bureaucracy). It asserts that there’s a constitutionality problem too, but doesn’t give an example of any court so holding, so I’m left to sort this article into the “Second Amendment absolutist” stack for the time being, I think: Interesting, passionate, but not yet (to me) convincing as a matter of constitutional law.

    So I’m learning and grateful for what you’re teaching, but not yet with you if you’re ready to declare the 1934 Act unconstitutional. Are you?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  229. @ Col. H (#231): Did you perhaps intend to write, “if any of the media will follow up”? nk and others have made comments here which make me curious about the whole subject of what the BATFE has approved and when, so that research would be a good prerequisite. But yeah, at least one of the examples of an approval is surely during the Obama Era.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  230. Wow, narciso, that link is terrifying: Las Vegas Strip shooter targeted aviation fuel tanks, source says:

    Las Vegas Strip mass murderer Stephen Paddock used his Mandalay Bay hotel room to spray massive aviation fuel tanks with bullets Sunday night, a knowledgeable source told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    The bullets left holes, but did not penetrate the two circular white tanks, sparing the nearby Route 91 Harvest country music festival from a potentially massive explosion, the source said Wednesday.
    The tanks are roughly 1,100 feet from the concert site, where Paddock killed 58 people and wounded almost 500.

    Coupled with the explosives in the car, this makes it seem like the guy had a multi-prong plan to combine his elevated machinegun nest with McVeigh-style explosion(s), but only pulled off the sniper part of the plan. Gulp. This guy is more credible as a twisted evil genius than the average Bond villain.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  231. Maybe those were the very first shots heard, the small bursts, which might have been aimed fire at the storage tanks in hopes of starting the attack off with a massive explosion — after giving up upon which he perhaps started just hosing the crowd with the long magazine-emptying streams.

    Among the details they confirmed today was that the shooting was all within a 10 minute period before he killed himself. Compare that, again, with the Whitman sniper shooting, which lasted over an hour and a half but only killed 16.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  232. Beldar… been busy all day and just catching up here… this last thing I posted, I don’t know if anyone else had, but if one is also trying to understand what could have prompted Paddock into perpetrating this, I haven’t read anything that makes as much sense.

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  233. #174 Beldar

    The ATF has a notoriously bad reputation among the gun community when it comes to NFA law and regulations: incompetence, malice, arbitrary and capricious. Apparently the ATF even screwed up the mandatory registration record-keeping of NFA legal machine-guns.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/06/foghorn/atf-employees-nfa-records-unreliable-often-missing/

    It’s gotten so bad that apparently even some within the ATF are sick of the nonsense. For example, some within the ATF itself want “silencers” reclassified as Title 1 firearms, because the ATF is stuck doing endless paperwork processing of silencers as Title 2 weapons. They would rather use their people to chase after the bad guys with guns.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-atf-official-proposes-loosening-gun-regulations/2017/02/06/beeb1120-ec7

    Brad (cc95c2)

  234. Yes, media damned iPhone!

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  235. You read that here first two days ago, though, surely, Col. H? 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  236. @ Brad (#240): Sounds like an excellent swamp primed for draining! Thanks.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  237. Serious question, to Brad & others: Do you think the BATFE is capable of being redeemed into a reasonably efficient and rational bureaucracy (to the limited extent such a thing is ever possible)? And how would a competent POTUS wishing to do that go about it?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  238. 242… no, Beldar, I had you blocked… just kidding. I got busy and I missed it. Too much going on the night before with my daughter… and I’m getting old and a bit dotty

    Colonel Haiku (43fb26)

  239. I think we can start by repealing the NFA and the GCA, the alcohol tax and the tobacco tax. Interstate commerce in explosives should be regulated for the time being and we can leave them that. To (more or less) quote Instapundit: “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” should be a convenience store.

    nk (dbc370)

  240. #236 Beldar

    If Whitman hadn’t been taking return fire from scattered rifleman, and if Whitman had a target of 22,000 packed victims in front of him, I’m confident that Whitman with his training and arsenal would have killed just as many people in 1966 as the Vegas maniac killed last Sunday, if not more.

    Brad (cc95c2)

  241. @ Brad (#247): None of the return fire was meaningful, he was behind waist-high solid cover with rain spouts to shoot out from; but yeah, otherwise I agree: Whitman’s attack was very well calculated in its setting, and he was a helluva shot with magnificent fields of fire, and you’re exactly right about the target density differential. I wrote about that my memories of that incident here, if you missed it and are interested; I wasn’t there, but my sister and a neighbor were under fire, and I later walked the observation deck from which he shot.

    @ Col. H (#245): We know each other well enough I’d have assumed you were kidding without the emoticon, and thanks for the grin. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  242. @ Beldar,

    In answer to your question about the redemption of the BATF; No. They are assclowns. They have always been assclowns. Under Reagan they raided a lot of ‘Klan’ and ‘Neo Nazi’ ‘armories’ but my understanding is that they did such a poor job on recording chain of possession on the seized guns that most of the prosecutions were dropped almost before they began. In any case, they found very few really flagrant violations and had no make do with a bunch of technicalities. They grabbed a bunch of headlines about ‘right wing extremists’ and accomplished one half the square root of f*ck all.

    They are notorious for overcomplicated ‘sting’ operations, for bullying, for running defendants out of money rather than actually having a case. They are a classic example of an organization full of cowboys, yahoos, and empire-builders.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  243. #240 Beldar

    Oof, tough question.

    I am going to split with my fellow gunnies, in saying abolish the ATF, transfer the responsibilities to the FBI, and DO NOT transfer any of the ATF personnel. I don’t think the ATF can be redeemed.

    I think an organizational death-sentence of that sort, might provide a useful incentive to the bureaucracy to not repeat the error.

    Some gunnies argue that the incompetence of the ATF is actually a defense against government overreach. I can’t agree with that. Not after Waco.

    Some argue that the FBI would be more dangerous to gun-rights because they would be more competent than the ATF in enforcing anti-gun laws. Maybe. But I suspect the great number of responsibilities that the FBI must cover would split the attention of the FBI too much to allow greater abuse of gun-rights than the ATF already does.

    Brad (cc95c2)

  244. @ Brad (#250): Thanks, that’s a thoughtful answer I’ll certainly mull. It reminds me of Ted Cruz’ arguments regarding the abolition of the IRS, with which I did and do agree.

    The old ATF was part of Treasury, which I understand had its historical rationale but has already been changed when it was moved to DoJ post 9/11/01. I have a vague recollection of these arguments being aired then too.

    Do gunnies still call it “ATF”? Or “BATFE”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  245. Another question along the same lines, for Brad & Mr. Schofield: Is the problem with the agency that it’s been politicized? Or that it’s merely mismanaged by bad bureaucrats? Or are its problems unsolvable by nature? Or something else, or some combination?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  246. Col H., Thank you for the Ringo link. I shared it to my FB page. I once had a psychiatric episode due to prednisone prescribed for my Crohn’s, so I can relate to what he said. Fortunately for me, it resolved as soon as I started to taper off, but it’s a very bizarre and horrible feeling when one small part of your mind is objective enough to know that you are 1)bat&”%t crazy 2) can do nothing about it and 3) scaring everyone around you. And mind you,I was going through a manic episode, not an actual schizoid episode.

    kishnevi (704a68)

  247. I accept that the government can ban personal possession of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, on the basis of the danger such pose to the community. I can apply that to fully automatic guns, but it requires a stretch — they’re dangerous if used, but the others are dangerous if poorly maintained, and I think that’s an important distinction.

    There are two, perhaps three, reasons for the right to keep and bear arms. First is defense of the state or community as a member of a regulated militia. Second is defense of the self, family and perhaps neighbors, which is also related to the militia duty. Third is perhaps as a bulwark against tyranny, but I’m going to come back to that.

    The individual’s militia duty is to provide themselves and armament for themselves. It is NOT to provide aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, etc. So, there is some upper bound, even under the most generous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

    Now, there is also a lower bound: armament sufficient to protect one’s self and family, and preferably sufficient to deter a larger group or stronger men. Knives, are clearly not sufficient as mere strength or skill in an attacker would prove decisive. They are also not particularly useful in performing the militia duty.

    So, firearms. At least some firearms are covered, and likely the ability to bear them in normal commerce. Where the line is drawn is a bit misty, but anything that is both useful to self-defense and the militia, and can be borne by an individual would seem reasonable.

    Things that are not useful to self-defense (RPGs, belt-fed machine guns) but are to the militia can be checked out of the Armory when TSHTF.

    The line that is currently drawn between semi-auto and full-auto seems a good one. Clearly banning semi-auto handguns (and probably rifles) would severely impact the right of self-defense. And similarly allowing full-auto rifles would not measurably improve it.

    I’m not an absolutist here largely because the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Near as I can tell the only absolute right in the constitution is the right to terminate a pregnancy.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  248. Oh, the bulwark against tyranny thing. If everyone has guns, it won’t matter what they are. And you don’t want any individual with too much power or you overthrow the state just to end up with Negan.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  249. #252 Beldar

    I’m just an observer, I’m no expert. But my opinion is: everything you mentioned combined, plus at the root of the problem some bad laws which empowers the whole rotten mess.

    The War on Guns never burned as hot as the War on Drugs or Alcohol Prohibition (not for lack of trying by the anti-gun advocates). But I see all those stupid ideas as aspects of the same bad impulse present in American culture, an unhealthy type of Puritanism which is eager to crack down on those ‘evil heathens’ whose ‘fun’ is blamed for societies problems.

    Brad (cc95c2)

  250. While on the site sayUncle, I followed a few links and came upon the aforementioned guy who can sell you a CNC to make an AR-15 in your garage: Cody Wilson. He calls Trump a genius ( among other things).

    felipe (023cc9)

  251. 253… sounds like a helluva thing to go thru, kishnevi. I’ve heard go this Ringo fellow before, but as I read his piece, my admiration for him grew… must have quite a love for that woman, that’s a Greyhound bus full of baggage.

    And I am also serious about Jimmy Kimmel. WTF is wrong with that guy?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  252. Heard of, not go, sheesh

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  253. Say Uncle is a good site. Very civil comment threads too.

    nk (dbc370)

  254. @ Brad, who wrote (#256): “I’m just an observer, I’m no expert.” Yes, I understand, but you’re a keen observer and have thought about these things more than I have. Thanks!

    @ Col. H, re Ringo’s story: I kept thinking of the multi-season Showtime miniseries “Dexter” as I read that. It’s compelling. As an armchair psychiatrist, a “multi-week psychotic break” concealed behind a facade of normality is something I believe I once observed, although it fortunately involved only emotional, not physical, risks of harm.

    So much of this is macabre fascination, I know, but I rationalize that by telling myself, “It’s important to understand this guy’s motivation and psyche!”

    As if. But can’t stop.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  255. @ kish (#253): I’m glad you had no worse consequences from your prednisone reaction. Many years ago when I was doing litigation over a cancer quack’s predations on the suffering, I confirmed — through testimony from a whistle-blowing physician’s assistant, corroborated by opinion testimony and testing on a particular patient by a disinterested Toronto oncologist — that the quack was deliberately injecting his cancer patients with IV prednisone mixed into his supposed “cancer cure,” but without telling them or charting it.

    Now, there are legitimate situational uses for steroids in cancer therapy. But this guy was blanket-administering it, and his target patient market comprised patients who’d just come off traditional therapies (chemo, radiation, surgery) and were miserable and suffering from depressed appetites. Presto-hido-the-prednisone-o! And suddenly these patients started reporting increased appetites, lessened pain in their extremities, and euphoria! Why, the miracle cure must be working!

    The Toronto doc snapped to it when he was independently examining one of the quack’s patients, and observed that the guy had cushingoid features — that is, his face was swollen up like Jerry Lewis’ “moon face” during his treatments for pulmonary fibrosis. He ran tests that confirmed the steroid concentrations, but then couldn’t find any source to explain that anywhere in the charts the quack had forwarded. The PA knew the truth — that this was part of a scam — from the quack’s own mouth, when she’d been instructed not to chart the steroid treatments.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  256. Beldar, I gratefully accept “respected friend” as you know I hold you in high regard.

    I do think the NFA of 1934 as a whole is unconstitutional on vagueness grounds alone, much less actual 2A doctrine, but doubt that any Supreme Court would so rule. The paper you saw only really discusses the complete silliness of “short barrelled rifle” definitions. There are more completely incoherent messes in the rest of the NFA from the silliness of the ATF ruling that a spring is a machine gun to the definition of “Any Other Weapon” making some pocket holsters registerable.

    I think that the 1986 Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional, given that the supposed original Constitutional basis for the NFA was taxing power (a doctrine that amusingly no longer supports it) and the Hughes Amendment created an outright ban on new registrations. But similarly no Supreme Court will have the honesty to confront that.

    I think you may not understand that there is a narrow group of gun rights people, 2A “Absolutists” who support knocking down the whole NFA, but that the actual community of people owning actual machine guns under the NFA by and large do not. This is because if at least the Hughes Amendment were struck down, the value of registered full auto firearms would collapse and that is a significant investment to them.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  257. As for using rate of fire as a regulatory basis, just as the current scheme can make a worn out disconnector into a Federal felony, the issue with using rate of fire is that someone could accidentally create a rifle that fires “too fast” by changing springs or the weight of a bolt carrier. Indeed, many 3 Gun competitors balance the buffer spring rate, the diameter of the gas port, and light bolt carriers on their AR rifles in order to reduce the reciprocating weight and reduce recoil. Any arbitrary firing rate might encompass tens of thousands or more rifles already in circulation.

    After all, I’ve seen estimates that at least 10 million AR pattern rifles have been sold in the US. And there are an untold number of other semi auto rifles of different designs.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  258. Inch-mile thing. Once it’s “reasonable” and “common sense”, no matter how obviously silly the first step is, then we have validated the “reasonable” and “common sense” metrics for further intrusion.

    Richard Aubrey (0d7df4)

  259. they’re in a rush

    they don’t want to wait for any facts

    which is probably why the sleazy corrupt hyper-politicized FBI isn’t producing any

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  260. his priorities are obscene

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  261. Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. – Mr. Charles de Montesquieu (deceased)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  262. I think I agreed with your general premise until I looked more into what they are…

    The idea defending something that can easily circumnavigate the fully automatic weapons ban just to provide people with some novelty on the range seem silly…

    But when we look at creating laws to make people safer, or any law really, I think we should first ask ourselves if there’s any expectation that it would really work. In this case no law to prevent bump stocks or trigger kranks or the other silly things that people have made to get around the automatic weapons ban would have any effect, sadly. They are easy and cheap to make with little to no specialized equipment.

    A bump stock is basically a tube with springs. Should we ban tubes and springs?

    James (5c2f13)

  263. What do homicidal psychopaths want? Stimulation (or relief of boredom) crushing dominance/superiority (the most important), to be the greatest, and the relief and pleasure of sadistic revenge (even revenge against inferior or lesser beings just daring to breathe air in his world.) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html

    SarahW (3164f0)

  264. “The bullets left holes, but did not penetrate the two circular white tanks, sparing the nearby Route 91 Harvest country music festival from a potentially massive explosion, the source said Wednesday.

    I’ve since read that one bullet did actually penetrate the tank, and two the outer shell. Source explained that a massive amount jet fuel Ina tank is not going to be ignited by a hail of bullets, it very difficult to ignite in that state let alone explode, and that there were fire suppression systems in place that would have snuffed out ignited fuel, to boot.

    I suppose if a sufficient quantity leaked or sprayed on to the ground, mixed with air or aerosolized, it could have but lit by other means. But his efforts seem like, for a careful planner, he didn’t really know what he was doing with the tank shots, ..like he might be aping a Michael Bay movie. His rich fantasy life didn’t pay off there, thank goodness. That a particular error reminds me of the failed explosives in the Columbine high school massacre.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  265. it’s really hard to apply that template to a 64 year old

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  266. psychopaths gotta psychopath.

    This is jsut from a crummy psychologyntodaynartile about Harris,
    “IIn fact, the only reason Eric was even in the library is that the major bombs he and Dylan placed in the cafeteria did not detonate. The failure of these bombs to explode forced Eric to improvise. He had planned to blow up the school and kill hundreds of people, including his own friends. He also had bombs set to go off in the parking lot to kill parents, rescue workers, law enforcement personnel, and people from the media. The attack was not focused on jocks or anybody else. Eric just wanted to kill on a large scale. He wanted to be remembered for committing the most deadly terroristic attack in United States history. He wrote, “I want to leave a lasting impression on the world.”

    I wonder how frustrated Paddock was when his plans for a massive jet fuel explosion fizzled, if those shots were first, or last.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  267. so that’s an interesting contrast

    at least so far it seems mandalay boy didn’t leave much behind in terms of documentation what would shape or explicate his “legacy”

    that seems weird, no?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  268. speaking of smoking guns

    there’s something borderline psychopathic about this i think

    it just seems kinda round the bend on the decadence scale

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  269. I wonder what he did leave behind…

    Supposedly there is a mystery lady who spent time at the hotel with him before he carried out his murders. I’m still wondering what happened to “you’re all going to die tonight” lady who was escorted out io the concert venue for hassling people.

    If somebody put smoke in my drink I would bump-stock it off the counter.

    SarahW (3164f0)

  270. 277. SarahW (3164f0) — 10/5/2017 @ 9:02 am

    Supposedly there is a mystery lady who spent time at the hotel with him before he carried out his murders.

    There was also a report that he was seen by a prostitute, and a later report that the mystery woman and the prostitute are the same person, and later that the police knew her name, but apparently they weren’t able to locate her.

    Also, somebody left a phone charger in Room 32-135 (that explains the report it was Room 135, and I wondered at that number) that doesn’t match any of the phones that Stephen Paddock was known to have.

    While this was going on they got the idea that the shooter or a shooter was on the 29th floor, and they cleared that floor and then all the floors up to 32. This was, I think, after the shooting has stopped. They still seem to think he had an escape plan.

    And the Las Vegas police posted billborard advertisements asking if anybody knows something to say something.

    I’m still wondering what happened to “you’re all going to die tonight” lady who was escorted out io the concert venue for hassling people.

    This is not something that should get lost, although the details will probably prove this woman didn’t know anything. In principle, details shouldn’t get dropped, but they do get dropped fom the stories and soemtimes they are important.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  271. Bump stocks were only invented in 2010.

    The fact of the matte is machine guns were outlawed in 1934, but they’ve gradually bene inching back toward selling firearms, or addirons tof irarms, so that very may bullets can be fired in rapid succession. They need something a lot more than just outlawing bump stocks. The law should probably cover anything that lets many bullets be fired rapidly, or somthing that could help.

    People may still produce some themselves (if they are not too skilled, it will be something that ruins the firearm pretty soon) but then it’s illegal to saw off a shotgun and doesn’t that law have some effect?

    And it may very well be, that for all the bump stocks sold, Stephen Paddock is the only person who used them to help commit mass murder.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  272. No, Sammy, machine guns were not outlawed in 1934. They were all required to be registered, and a $200 transfer tax paid for those transferred to civilians. (In 1934, a Ford coupe went for around $500 to give you an idea of the value of money at that time.) A Thompson submachine gun already cost $225.00 out the factory, so only rich people could casually buy them. State and local jurisdictions could outlaw them, and many did, and the BATF notified local law enforcement before approving a transfer.

    nk (dbc370)

  273. Effectively they were outlawed, that’s what miller was about,

    narciso (d1f714)

  274. Five ways to bump your gun.
    Get a bump stock, Doc.
    Use a rubber band, Dan.
    Drill a bump board, Ward.
    Use a shoe-string, Gene.
    Just need your hands, Hans.

    Hang on loosely,
    And don’t let go.
    If you tilt the muzzle,
    You’re gonna lose your toes.

    nk (dbc370)

  275. narciso 10/7/2017 @ 5:48 pm

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock-calculated-where-to-shoot-to-kill-maximum-number-of-people/article/2636860#!

    So they did find something – not a manifeso, but simple calculations. Or the results of calculations, rather.

    He had visited the casino hotel a number of tiems before in September.

    I suppose he wasn’t able do these calculations in Chicago where he reserved aroom for August 1 and a second for August 3 ending in both cases August 6, the last day of the Lollapalooza annual Lollapalooza music festival. He had to argue with the hotel manager of the Blackstone Hotel to get them. Then he never showed up. (or did he?) I suppose there was also the problem of transporting all of these firearms to Chicago in his car.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-las-vegas-gunman-lollapalooza-20171005-story.html

    He had also contemplated doing that at the “Life is Beatiful” music festival. There was a report he wasn’t able to get a room but there was also a report that he did in fact rent rooms through AirBnb.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/las-vegas-shooting-investigation/index.html

    Maybe he just didn’t like where the room was. My suspicion is that that was the original plan, and then he had to persuade his girlfriend to stay away another week. (She thought he wanted to break up with her)

    He eventually attacked a music festival that featured music he liked.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  276. Miller was a sawed-off shotgun, narciso. With a very narrow meaning. A shotgun with a shoulder stock and a barrel less than 18 inches long. Without the shoulder stock it’s an AOW (any other weapon) and you can have it for a $5.00 federal tax provided it’s legal under your state and local laws. When Bama McCall told Gator, “I have a permit”, that was not movie law.

    nk (dbc370)

  277. Paul Simon opening for .38 Special? That’ll work.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  278. “Hang On Loosely” is .38 Special? Heh! That was unintended — I only knew the lyrics, not the band.

    nk (dbc370)

  279. @ nk (#282): I actually sang that out loud after reading it the first time. Inspired.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  280. And here’s another gizmo:

    A federal court in Indiana is poised to rule on whether a device that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a rate of 450 rounds a minute can be sold to civilians, in a case that echoes a national debate over similar gun modifications that contributed to the carnage in Las Vegas on Sunday.

    Freedom Ordnance Manufacturing Inc., based in Chandler, Ind., sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in December, seeking to overturn an ATF determination that the company’s battery-operated grip converted an otherwise legal semiautomatic rifle into an automatic weapon civilians are prohibited from owning.

    ….

    The processes at work in Freedom Ordnance’s Electronic Reset Assist Device, the modification at issue in the Indiana case, are “virtually indistinguishable” from those in the bump stock, which replaces an ordinary stock, the end of the gun that rests on the shoulder, lawyers for the Indiana company said in legal briefs.

    ….

    Freedom Ordnance’s ERAD includes a battery pack in the rifle grip. Rather than harnessing recoil, the device rapidly resets the trigger and pushes the trigger finger forward, spitting out bullets as the shooter applies rearward pressure with the trigger finger.

    ….

    The first patented bump stock, the Slide Fire, advertises a firing rate of more than 600 rounds a minute. The M4 carbine, carried by U.S. infantry troops, has a firing rate of 700 rounds a minute.

    The company’s lawyer is quoted as saying his client has merely built “the proverbial ‘better mousetrap’” in order to “make [semiautomatic rifles] more useful for their lawful users.”

    Batteries included, I wonder? Can you get a version with a solar charger? Anyway, here’s one of President Donald J. Trump’s minions making in court the same argument I’ve made here:

    ATF officials concluded Freedom Ordnance’s invention requires a single pull of the trigger to activate the firing sequence, which continues until the shooter’s finger is released, behaving more like a fully automatic than a semiautomatic weapon, Shelese Woods, an assistant U.S. attorney in Indianapolis, wrote in a July legal brief.

    I’m guessing the NRA has now gathered the allies it can, made such efforts to dissuade such further-absolutist opponents as it can, and is putting the pitch to both WH and Congressional players this weekend.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  281. This was a fun thread, despite the sadness of the event behind it. Even David from Oz. He brought back memories — Linda Kozlowski and a Bowie knife in the same movie. Sigh!

    nk (dbc370)

  282. Beldar @ 288. That is a machine gun under the NFA’s or anybody else’s definition, no question about it, because the trigger is the button on the electric motor. He’s not stretching the envelope, he’s trying to break through to Minigun territory. There have been several guys like that — one went to prison for it — who build these things as a way to challenge to the NFA and not because they have any hope that they will be approved under current law.

    nk (dbc370)

  283. Yes too clever. Y half:

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/grenade-launcher-included/news-story/724772ea2182fdcc4c6d6ec9ddbe80ba

    This aussie often points out absurdity down under

    narciso (d1f714)

  284. Note to self for future reference if needed (although unlikely it will be): If you’re looking for a link to the official website for cases pending in the various federal district courts of most states, it’s sufficient usually to Google “Pacer Minnesota” or “Pacer Hawaii” to get the URL you’re looking for.

    The exception is Indiana. Something to do with some NBA team, I gather, which Google seems to think is more important than the court portal for that state.

    I haven’t read them yet, but probably will, and in the meantimethis looks like the main briefing on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment by the manufacturer and ATF, if anyone’s curious and wants to save the PACER download fees:

    * FOMI’s brief in support of its motion for summary judgment;

    * ATF’s brief in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment;

    * FOMI’s response/reply brief; and

    * ATF’s response/reply brief.

    Deep weeds for the nonlawyers, but source documents rock.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  285. And re Ms. Kozlowski: Her character was quite resourceful as best I recall the movie, but to tell the truth, the clip you linked is something I remember better from the movie than anything in the rest of it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  286. Very first impression from the briefing: The lawyers for the company were smart enough to use, as the defined term to call their client throughout their paperwork, only the first word in its corporate name, “Freedom.”

    They were less thoughtful in simply repeating the name chosen by the company’s marketing experts for its product, the “ERAD.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  287. Paddock was into video poker but live players use it to hone skills. If he was into high stakes his target could have been the Hotel/casino ownership. Losses or personal grudge? He seemed only get excited about fonance/bizness..
    Ben burn (c770f4) — 10/4/2017 @ 9:02 am

    I just listened to a discussion about psychopaths. One possible characteristic they have is boredom. The normal gambling may not have been enough to move his needle.

    Pinandpuller (8377b0)

  288. I’m guessing by Tuesday there will be motions asking permission to file amicus briefs in this case.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  289. I see. They’re using an electric motor to do the same job the rubber bands do in the second video in the link at 282. Or so they claim. It allows them a quick reset while maintaining a soft trigger pull, which the rubber bands (or a spring super-glued between the back of the trigger and the rear face of the trigger guard) would not do.

    nk (dbc370)

  290. It’s a very fine difference from a motor pushing the trigger back from the front. This one pushes it forward and bounces it off the shooter’s finger. Like dribbling a basketball. I would not call the ATF’s ruling arbitrary and capricious in this case, and if I were the trier of fact I would struggle to find that it is not a Rube Goldbergish auto sear.

    nk (dbc370)

  291. Beldar,

    Please tell me you are reading while you watch the Horns on TV.

    DRJ (d35869)

  292. And thank you for the links, Beldar. The ATF’s brief was a lesson in law to me. Now I understand why the 11th Circuit had to uphold the summary judgment in the Akins case.

    nk (dbc370)

  293. And why Gorsuch is not merely protecting the judicial rice bowl with his objections to the Chevron doctrine.

    nk (dbc370)

  294. 286… I know that song well… got a long time buddy who lives just outside Yosemite Park that can play guitar, drums and keyboards and I can play bass and have a decent singing voice. He’s built what amounts to a recording studio and we used to lay down recordings of our versions of Beatles, Stones, Kinks and others and we had this .38 Special song perfected. Haven’t done that for about 10 years now, but man, that was some fun!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  295. @ DRJ (#299): It’s amazing how well you know me. I’m watching exactly that, about 15 minutes behind live-action on my DVR, while reading the briefs, and also playing play-money Texas Hold’Em. And posting here. I am scattered but stimulated.

    I’m sure you noticed that the government’s opening brief relied heavily on the Seventh Circuit minigun case you mentioned above, nk. If there’s a court of appeals that you’d think you ought to be able to trust when it comes to the subject of machineguns, it would surely be the Seventh or maybe the Second, right?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  296. Whisky, poker, guns & college football, with my dog at my feet — the perfect fall weekend evening in Texas! I have not yet gotten out my trumpet, in deference to my neighbors since this is a night game.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  297. Also, I didn’t barbecue tonight, so I suppose it’s not quite the perfect evening, but it’s definitely a passing grade.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  298. The entire ATF brief impressed me, Beldar. I started to understand from their statement of facts what you tried to tell me about judicial review under the APA when we were discussing the Akins case. It’s not only things I did not know that became clearer, but also things I thought I knew. Thank you, again.

    nk (dbc370)

  299. Heck of a ball game. Ended with a rugby scrum.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  300. Speaking of football, would this have happened in Dallas? The clue is “football”.

    nk (dbc370)

  301. It’s actually remarkable, reading those briefs, to see how many of the same legal and technical and policy arguments have been made in these comments. I was impressed with the lawyering on both sides, actually. And between the two sides, they seem to have been very thorough, both in terms of prior ATF rulings and products and in terms of prior law, and this briefing is absolutely topical up through the Vegas shooting.

    But I’m 100% sure within minutes after the first videos — with the audio of firing rates — hit the networks, everyone connected with this case, including the manufacturer, its lawyers and experts, the ATF people and DoJ lawyers, and the judge and his law clerks, were all saying, “Oh wow, this case just got a lot more newsworthy and we’re all going to be famous by the end of this week.” And they’re trying to figure out what, if anything, to do more, or to do differently, post-Vegas.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  302. might sound crazy but it ain’t no lie bump stocks bye bye bye

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  303. While on the site sayUncle, I followed a few links and came upon the aforementioned guy who can sell you a CNC to make an AR-15 in your garage: Cody Wilson. He calls Trump a genius ( among other things).
    felipe (023cc9) — 10/4/2017 @ 9:01 pm

    Jay Leno has a CNC machine in his garage that can probably make everything from a tank on down.

    Pinandpuller (8377b0)

  304. A bump stock is basically a tube with springs. Should we ban tubes and springs?
    James (5c2f13) — 10/5/2017 @ 6:32 am

    I was assured spring loaded TP roll holders were too big to fail.

    Pinandpuller (8377b0)

  305. @ nk (#308): Since I was logged in to PACER already, I found that case too, and read the complaint. I expected to find some careful obfuscation or vagueness that suggested there was some other reason for the student’s expulsion (although that’s probably not the correct administrative term). But the complaint is detailed enough to be reasonably credible, enough to convince me that the case will settle almost immediately, with an apology and attorneys’ fees and maybe some other money. CyFair ISD isn’t Houston proper, but rather a suburban school district, but even so, I’m surprised to read of one of its principals going off the rails, legally speaking. When the principal said, “This is not the NFL!” she was right: The NFL is a private business whose owners (subject to their collective bargaining agreement) could (but won’t) discipline players for political demonstrations. But the public school principal, as an agent of government, can’t, and certainly ought to know she can’t, and probably does but lost sight of that in her anger at the demonstrating NFL players.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  306. Beldar! I didn’t mean to put you to that much trouble. All I meant was that in Dallas they wouldn’t do that to someone named Landry. Ok, maybe it was a pretty lame attempt on my part.

    nk (dbc370)

  307. She doesn’t look to be related to Tom’s family, but I was curious about the case anyway. 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  308. Sadly, most of today’s Dallasites probably don’t even remember Landry, a great man and gentleman, and the antithesis of the man who fired him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  309. @ DRJ (#316): That’s true and truly sad.

    TheHill.com is reporting that GOP Congress-critters are coming around to the political strategy I recommended in #7 above: GOP leaders look to avoid a fight with base over guns:

    Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are signaling that they want the Trump administration to write new regulations for a gun accessory that may have allowed the Las Vegas shooter to fire hundreds of rounds per minute.

    While not explicitly ruling out legislation to outlaw bump stocks, the GOP leaders’ words and actions suggest they’d rather avoid a head-on fight with the National Rifle Association — which prefers a regulatory approach to passing a new law.

    This is typical media presumption that the NRA is the master puppeteer of all Congress-critters. The much better reason why the Congress-critters want to punt this to the Administration is to keep this shooting, and the gun control debate arising from it, from becoming a distraction and a political danger for 2018 midterms.

    Beldar (fa637a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8043 secs.