NRA Backs Restrictions!!!!!

[Caleb]

Originally Posted by sdmc530

, I understand what your saying, and I get they are putting on the "front" of NRA making these kind of decisions BUT what if it would pass? What if they turn this in to bigger legislation? Its a lot of what ifs of course but its a very slippery slope to me.

This.... and when they get a taste of blood, they will attack like a hungry pack of wolves.

[RKP]

ATF unlikely to crack down on rapid-fire bump stocks

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/atf-unlikely-crack-down-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808441?cid=par-xfinity_20171007

[dw1911]

I don't care if the ATF isn't planning anything on Bump Stocks. The NRA had no business even commenting on it.Much less supporting ANY Restrictions on it. I am up to renew and having 2nd thoughts about it now

[Gatorade]

Everyone just calm down. AR15.com blew up on this a few days ago. Did you read what the NRA suggested? They asked the ATF to review to see if bump stocks were legal and required regulation or restriction. ATF gave approval and said bumpstocks are legal years ago. NRA doesn't create laws nor do they tell ATF how to enforce them. If the NRA could tell congress and the ATF what laws to make and how to interpret them we would all be able to Form 1 new machine guns at will. This is the NRA using slight of hand to say the firearms used were legal and in legal configuration. The mainstream of the country thinks bumpstocks ate illegal so they are screaming that this dirtbag Las Vegas shooter was using illegal arms and modifications when in fact he probably wasn't. He operated within the law until he vandalized his hotel room and sprayed out the illegally broken windows. The NRA knows bumpstocks are legal and wants ATF to put out there that they in the past have certified that bumpstocks are legal. Putting the onus on the ATF to say they are legal and if you want to ban them then you need you representatives to write a law to make it illegal. The can of worms that congress would open is massive and they more than likely won't touch it or face the wrath of voters who say enough is enough. You can't ban your way to safety. You can keep creating legislation and people will continue to create legal means to be able to do what they want. Even if you make it illegal a criminal bent on killing won't think twice about illegally modifying to create what they feel they need. So step back and READ what the NRA proposed and make a decision if the work they do is in your interests or not. How would it look in the wake of the deadliest mass shooting outside of warefare in the US if the NRA sat back and said "It was all legal and you can suck an egg if you think we care." Most have that view of the NRA already but this may throw them for a loop.

[dw1911]

There will be no calming down. Look at this. And worst of all, it's a Republican that started it! From Floriduh! Not passed committee, probably won't pass committee,but My Point is: The NRA should have been quiet on this! Period!
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfi...mpstockban.pdf

I strongly oppose this bill as it is ambiguous. There are no specific named accessories, nor standards for rate of fire, which could potentially render every semi auto firearm illegal and every law abiding gun,owner a felon. I oppose any further gun control at Federal, State, or Local level.

[pitor]

Originally Posted by dw1911

There will be no calming down. Look at this. And worst of all, it's a Republican that started it! From Floriduh! Not passed committee, probably won't pass committee,but My Point is: The NRA should have been quiet on this! Period!
https://curbelo.house.gov/uploadedfi...mpstockban.pdf

I strongly oppose this bill as it is ambiguous. There are no specific named accessories, nor standards for rate of fire, which could potentially render every semi auto firearm illegal and every law abiding gun,owner a felon. I oppose any further gun control at Federal, State, or Local level.

This is what I wrote my senators and house representatives about Curbelo's bill:

"Please take one minute to read this: Bill HR3999 is a serious threat to freedom, and here's why.

The vagueness of the language of this bill leaves the door wide open for abusive interpretation by agencies like the BATFE, which (unconstitutionally) enacts draconian laws to further erode the basic right of self defense and freedom.

And I quote from HR3999: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes. "

But gun owners know what "part" increases the rate of fire: the trigger finger... or maybe a thumb stuck in the trigger guard hooked to a belt loop as gun is pushed forward, bump firing (no bump stock needed!) the rifle. Is there going to be a law banning thumbs or where we put them?

"designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle” is a very broad, undefined attribute of a gun, a process that can be achieved with no parts or modifications to the firearms, just the knowledge of how to bump fire a semi-automatic gun.

BUT THIS BILL HR3999 WILL LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN for abusive rulings on trigger pulls, length of pull, trigger size, trigger reset, etc, as the trigger is the actuator via which we have a rate of fire. SLIPPERY SLOPE to say the least. I'm urging you to stand with freedom and understand the deep consequences of such vague language in the bill.

I understand guns are tools that must be used responsibly, so are cars and chainsaws, but no other tool does a better job guaranteeing the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Ultimately, if the goal is to get rid of guns through back door legislation (legislating over features, attachments, cosmetic look) then I ask of those set on this path to be stand-up individuals, don’t hide intentions, and start the process of repealing the 2nd Amendment. Good luck as we will not let it be repealed or modified.

The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, the citizenry, not the militia, the police, or a government agency. Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does the phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed" appear. It's meaning then, is unequivocal.

Respectfully,

Pedro Uribe"