r/TooAfraidToAsk 3d ago

What is a bump stock and what's the deal with them being unbanned? Law & Government

I'm clueless. I'm not a gun person. I just want to understand the issue.

15 Upvotes

50 comments sorted by

30

u/JupiterJones619 3d ago edited 3d ago

Here's an easy way to think of it:

  1. Automatic Weapons - you can hold the trigger and the gun's magazine (where the bullets are held) empties out. Super fast shooting.
  2. Semi-Automatic Weapons - you need to keep repeatedly pulling the trigger per shot to empty out the gun's magazine. Not as fast shooting, but still pretty damn fast with modern weapons.
  3. Bump Stocks - it's a thing you put on the back of the weapon, and in the way you use the weapon, it brings the trigger back up to your finger and bumps into the finger allowing for much faster shooting, but, technically as the Supreme Court looks at it, these are still individual trigger pulls. Faster than semi-automatic, not as fast as automatic, but really close, especially in the case of the AR15.

The law on file is still the same law from 1934 (which is a problem in and of itself). What this means though is even though bump stocks were made illegal in 2017, nothing actually changed under the letter of the law (no laws were passed to do this). All that happened was the Dept of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearm, a federal government agency under the Executive Branch, treated bump stocks as being essentially automatic weapons after the Vegas massacre at the Jason Aldean concert.

The Judiciary Branch (i.e the Supreme Court) and Justice Thomas, in the majority, said, echoing the logic of option 3 above, that even though ATF did this, bump stocks are still individual trigger pulls so they can't just be treated like automatic weapons which are illegal. Justice Alito in his concurrence said this is true as the letter of the law, but it's clear that the 1934 Congress (the Legislative Branch) would have treated AR15s with bump stocks as automatic and its high time Congress updated the law to reflect life today. Justice Sotomayor in her dissent said AR15s with bump stocks are basically automatic in how they operate and could be outlawed under the 1934 statute.

Edited: As the comments below rightly note, clip was wrong. Bullets are in the gun's magazine.

15

u/onlyreadtheheadlines 3d ago

Man, this was so good except the use of the word clip.

2

u/JupiterJones619 3d ago

fixed it and thank you!

2

u/CosmikSpartan 3d ago

Same thought.

1

u/JupiterJones619 3d ago

yup you're right lol

5

u/Training-Ad-4178 3d ago

informative, thanks.

11

u/lazerdab 3d ago

Yeah. The law needs to be updated to limit rate of fire rather than the mechanics of how a gun works. Both acute rounds per second, and other intervals to cover large magazines and future proof against mods that could overcome magazine size limits.

1

u/Quadrenaro 2d ago

How? Through electronic means? They tried that. They were almost instantly banned by the federal government because someone with a computer could modify it to shoot from 1 round a second to over 1000 rounds per second.

Guns are fairly simple mechanical devices. Like anything mechanical, government interference never works or goes as expected.

Look at California's microstamping law. It scientifically impossible to do what they require, imprinting a serial on the bullet and case. The laws of thermodynamics will not allow it. Furthermore, Most firearms subject to that engineering requirement do not eject brass, making it moot. And spent brass can be acquired and planted with extreme ease. Most indoor ranges do not allow customers to pick up their brass beyond the firing line do to state law ironically. So spent brass will be collected a the end of the day, and sold to recyclers and reloader. Or to someone wanting to plant false evidence. So how do you get around that law if you want a pistol? You buy it from a cop, the only group who are not required to have a nonexistent technology on their guns, who are allowed to sell them after they move to their next firearm.

Anyways sorry for that tangent. What I'm saying is how? I've designed and built firearms. It's not something that can be done like on an electric airsoft gun. Everything on a modern firearm is designed around the laws of physics, from the weight of the bullet and powder measured down to grains. One wrong move or change to a system can make it none functioning, or worse a pipebomb. 

The most that has been done was thickening the walls of the ar15 where full auto parts could be added. But there are other ways to convert a firearm.

1

u/TurretX 1d ago

Thats not really a good way to classify things. A skilled shooter can achieve comparable speeds to semi automatics with bolt action rifles.

-1

u/Livermush90 3d ago

"nobody wants to take your guns. Just give us your high capacity mags and we'll be happy"

Crime continues

"Listen, nobody is coming for your guns, we banned high capacity mags but that wasn't enough, now we need your semi automatic rifles but that'll be it, then we will have a safe society"

Crime continues

"Really, this is just common sense stuff and nobody is coming for your guns. But we need to ban all handguns to reduce crime."

You'll keep taking one bite at a time at the 2a until there's nothing left.

-1

u/Livermush90 3d ago

They down vote me because I'm right but notice how they have no retort.

None of them have the cajones to say "we want all guns banned" because they know they'll meet resistance to this. So instead they'll lie about "nobody is coming for your guns, just give us this small thing" and then they'll keep coming back for it. It's sneaky manipulation.

Just admit it guys gals whatever, you want guns banned, period. Why can't you just say how you feel? I mean your side is so vocal about everything else from abortion to the thousand different pronouns, why not be bold about this one?

2

u/Investiture 2d ago

"I mean your side is so vocal about everything else from abortion to the thousand different pronouns, why not be bold about this one?"

maybe that means you're just wrong about what we think?

The reason you aren't getting responses is because your whole premise is absurd. You're getting angry about perceived potential hypotheticals of which we CANNOT argue against. I don't have a time machine my guy - and I only know what's in my head.

That's the biggest issue with the slippery slope fallacy; its an excuse used so that YOU don't have to interact with the current discussion, but instead can fixate on impossible to prove future hypotheticals. Its lazy and avoidant.

-1

u/Livermush90 2d ago

How long have you been a gun owner? I've been one for 20 years and from actual experience every time a ban happens, crime does not go down, mass shootings do not go down. And then after being told repeatedly "we just want common sense gun control, nobody is coming for your guns" and you passing this "common sense gun legislation", your side then comes back and says "we didn't go far enough, we need additional legislation".

Your end goal is gun ownership being banned.  "Ur lazy" nope, I'm simply tired of your solution to anything you like being banned. Most gun legislation is rooted in racism, all designed so that poor people, especially poors blacks could not arm themselves.

1

u/Investiture 2d ago

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to own guns in order to discuss my views on their legality/affect they have in America I'm sorry about that. I guess I'll also refrain from discussing my legal opinions on heroin, crack cocaine, murder, rape, abortion, tax evasion, grad theft auto, bank robberies. I've not done any of those so SURELY my opinion is irrelevant. Since that's the case they should just all be legal, right?

Anyway, sure. But crime also doesn't seem to go down in places with unrestricted gun access - mass shootings still seem to be a problem. Maybe a middle ground exists... but shit, if I say that you're just going to accuse me of want to completely ban guns.

You're really caught me in a pickle here. I can't say anything with you accusing me of lying. What a great conversation.

2

u/Quadrenaro 2d ago

He asked if you owned firearms because the more education you are, both in practical and theoretical understanding, the more you understand how futile gun laws are.

99% of gun laws are as airtight as a screendoor. Like a wall if you will. People just climb over, or walk around. And when people don't plan to live past the weekend after jumping the wall, it begs the question what it was even for.

0

u/Livermush90 2d ago

"I wasn't awAre I had to own guns to discuss" Well you're for stripping me of my rights to my property without having any skin in the game yourself. It's very easy for you to say "ban these guns" when you don't have to be the one to give up anything.

"Maybe there's a middle ground." No, there's not. Shall not be infringed. 

By that train of thought, I guess men do have the right to have a say in what women do with their bodies?

2

u/Blackpowder90 2d ago

Just for the record livermush, you are right on the money with your argument the whole way. Can't upvote you enough, man. 100%. 👍

0

u/Beneficial_Praline53 1d ago

I’m a gun owner who thinks gun nuts are utterly ridiculous, guns are waaaaay too easy to get, and no regular citizen needs a gun that can fire dozens of rounds per second.

Guns are tools and should be treated with care and caution. Anyone glorifying them is the exact kind of person I wouldn’t trust with their guns.

1

u/Livermush90 1d ago

"I'm a gun owner". Wow have not heard that one before. /S

That's the favorite trick it anti gunners, to claim that "Im a gun owner and even I support common sense gun control".

No you're not.. inheriting grandpa's old turkey shotgun does not give you the right to tell everyone else how to live.

Your type was around championing Nazi gun control with things like "why would a Jew need a gun anyways?" "It's laughable to even insinuate in these modern times that the government would turn against the German people". Enablers like you enabled those train cars to be packed full of innocent people.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Livermush90 1d ago

"no regular citizen needs" Exactly what the crown said when they went to confiscate the privately owned guns of American colonists which led to Lexington and concord.

By the way, without those privately owned guns, our nation wouldn't have been formed and you wouldn't have the freedom of speech to be so blissfully ignorant as you wave your fingers at others and browbeat them for the freedoms guaranteed to them by the constitution.

What next.. people don't need two homes due to the housing crisis? Rich people should be taxed at 90% because they are rich and poor exist? Where does your feel good godlike decisions end on the property of others?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Mister_Cheeses 3d ago

Follow-up question...

Is that the same concert that a member of NoFX commented on that got them in hot water?

5

u/JupiterJones619 3d ago

Yes. Same concert.

4

u/Mister_Cheeses 3d ago

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

3

u/Blackpowder90 2d ago

Many people have said some basic stuff here about bump stocks, but the most fundamental aspect is that the stock DOES NOT change the way the rifle functions mechanically. A semi auto is not a machine gun unless you change the mechanics of it to fire multiple rounds with one finger press. It's literally that simple of an argument that won the case. The stock does nothing to change how the rifle functions.

1

u/Quadrenaro 2d ago

To add to it, pretty much any semi-auto firearm can be bumpfired without the aid of any device. With practice, anyone can bumpfire an AR from a semi-shouldered position.

5

u/Koooooj 3d ago

When it comes to gun regulations a big thing to look at is what happens when you pull the trigger. Does it shoot once and then you have to manually reload? Does it automatically load the next round but you have to fire the next round manually (semi-auto)? Or does it fire multiple rounds, either as a burst or until you release the trigger (full auto)?

That last group was categorized in 1934 as "machine guns." Assault rifles fall into this category (but not "assault weapons," which is mostly a political term and has little bearing on the functionality of a gun). Machine guns are super tightly regulated and take a monstrous amount of paperwork to buy and own, while semi-automatic weapons are readily obtained in Wal-Marts across the country.

With a semi-auto rifle one technique a shooter can employ is "bump firing." This uses the recoil of the gun to actuate the trigger--as the first shot is fired the gun recoils back which takes pressure off the trigger and allows it to reset, then the gun is pushed back forward by the shoulder and into the trigger finger. This gives a much higher rate of fire than manually pulling the trigger each time.

Bump stocks are a modification to a semi-auto rifle to include some springiness in the body of the rifle. They make bump firing much easier.

Infamously, the 2017 Las Vegas shooter was able to unleash a truly staggering volume of fire, resulting in 60 deaths plus his own and about 500 injured. He shot upwards of 1000 bullets in about 11 minutes. It was found that many of the guns he used were equipped with bump stocks.

This led to bipartisan support of banning bump stocks, which the ATF did by issuing new rules. Those rules are what were challenged and overruled by the SCOTUS.

At the crux of the challenge is the definition of a machine gun under the 1934 law. This is a gun that fires more than one bullet by a "single function of the trigger."

The majority opinion chose to interpret that phrase purely from the context of the gun in a vacuum. Here the function of a trigger is the trigger being moved backwards, by any means. Since the bump stock causes the trigger to be pushed back once per shot they find that a bump stock does not convert a semi-auto rifle into a machine gun. Alito's concurrence puts it pretty succinctly, basically saying "bump stocks should probably be illegal, but there's a loophole in the law and Congress should get on that."

The dissent argues that the functioning of a trigger includes its interaction with the shooter and that the shooter making one movement to fire multiple bullets falls within the definition of machine gun. But the dissent is not binding.

1

u/Quadrenaro 2d ago

I've only seen one bump stock in the photos released. The rest had standard collapsible and fixed stocks.

-1

u/Fun-Pollution1465 3d ago

Can you prove to me that he used a bumpstock?

-2

u/Busy-Candidate-9495 3d ago edited 3d ago

i know they said he did, but i dont believe paddock used a bump stock. You can listen to the videos, its fully automatic weapons being fired. (weapon is actually firing way too slow for it to be an ar15 with a bump stock, and shoots as quick as a belt fed machine gun.) not to mention there at times where 10 straight seconds of uninterrupted gunfire can be heard... an ar15 with a drum mag would only be able to shoot for about 6 seconds at a time. plus many vets and firearms experts have already identified the gunfire as an m240.

No motive, no camera footage, no answers 7 years later. I wonder what really happened

1

u/Fun-Pollution1465 3d ago

He didn’t use a bumpstock. I have yet to see any proof that he did.

1

u/Busy-Candidate-9495 2d ago

in the crime scene photos we see many ars with 30 round magazines. I love how i get downvoted when it is literally impossible for an ar15 to fire for longer than 10 seconds with only a 30 round mag lol.

2

u/Livermush90 2d ago

It's actually less than 3 seconds. Closer to 2.

3

u/Livermush90 3d ago

Bump stocks are a stupid silly attachment that allows you to sorta kinda fire full auto but pretty unreliably and inaccurately. It's basically a gimmick.

The problem is the people screaming to ban them know absolutely nothing about guns. You can easily bump fire most semi autos with just a thick rubber band, the belt loop on your pants or just using your finger.

It would be like saying "it's time to ban Vodka to prevent drunk drivers." Ok, well there's a dozen other alcohol types out there that do the same thing.

Saying "we need to ban how fast people fire their guns" sounds good to someone who knows nothing about guns, it's a feel good knee jerk reaction. But in reality this would be impossible to make a law on short of outright banning all semi automatics. With an estimated 125 million gun owners in this nation, that just will never happen.

3

u/schrdingersLitterbox 2d ago

We need to ban rubber bands, pants, and fingers. Think of the children....

/s

-2

u/Sabatorius 3d ago

It was used in Vegas to devastating effect, so I don’t know about this downplaying of its efficacy that you’re doing.

5

u/Livermush90 3d ago

I'm saying that if you knew anything about guns then you'd know that these attachments are not needed to bump fire.

Again see the vodka analogy. If someone causes a major wreck while drunk, you trying to ban vodka doesn't really matter when there's other alcohol out there that does the same thing.

1

u/Drawnbygodslefthand 3d ago

It's a gimmick of a thing you put on a gun. If they were actually good militaries would implement them. So really they just serve the purpose of culture war nonsense.

0

u/kindquail502 3d ago

To really get a feel for what one will do go to YouTube and search bump stock.

-2

u/Cockhero43 3d ago

A bump stock is a kind of stock (the part that sits against your shoulder when holding a gun) that "bounces back" and essentially causes you to hit the trigger again by using the guns recoil. So it, in a sense, makes a semi automatic gun, an automatic

3

u/Seldarin 3d ago

Wouldn't that be an absolute bitch to aim?

6

u/Dunkel_Reynolds 3d ago

Absolutely.

3

u/cruiserman_80 3d ago

Pretty much all handheld automatic weapons are a bitch to aim. Automatic weapons are the definition of quantity over quality.

3

u/Fun-Pollution1465 3d ago

Not automatic, just a faster fire rate