The Liberal Gun Club Forum

I say nay.

I was shooting IDPA today and everyone at the range and did a double take when we thought we heard automatic fire. The RO and Match Director went into overdrive drying to find out what the hell was going on. We all come to find out it was someone shooting bump fire. Almost universally, I heard everyone pretty much dumbfounded how that thing wasn't illegal or at least an NFA item.

I realize it is legal. I realize you can readily own it. All that being said, I strongly thing it should be NFA. It serves no real tactical purpose and can't even be used to accurately aim. It does nothing but spray automatic fire. One shooter told me, "I think it's a bad idea, but no gun owner is going to step up and say anything about it." I replied with, "I would. It's a bad idea that scares people for no reason. Want to know why some states don't allow high cap mags? It's because of other questionable things like bump fire."

Anyway, I could use other people's two cents on the subject.

inmediasres wrote:I say nay.

I was shooting IDPA today and everyone at the range and did a double take when we thought we heard automatic fire. The RO and Match Director went into overdrive drying to find out what the hell was going on. We all come to find out it was someone shooting bump fire. Almost universally, I heard everyone pretty much dumbfounded how that thing wasn't illegal or at least an NFA item.

I realize it is legal. I realize you can readily own it. All that being said, I strongly thing it should be NFA. It serves no real tactical purpose and can't even be used to accurately aim. It does nothing but spray automatic fire. One shooter told me, "I think it's a bad idea, but no gun owner is going to step up and say anything about it." I replied with, "I would. It's a bad idea that scares people for no reason. Want to know why some states don't allow high cap mags? It's because of other questionable things like bump fire."

Anyway, I could use other people's two cents on the subject.

I don't bump fire and won't hang out with people who make their weapons malfunction dangerously on purpose, but what if it's an accident? Will they prosecute unauthorized slam fire? It just highlights the lack of wisdom around full auto by the law, in general. That said, I don't know who the hell is going to look at a range officer and whine "b..b..b..b..but it's technicawwy wegaw, sir" before getting their ass ejected, at best.

Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

every time bump fire is mentioned I think of this:

that's as far as I get.

I don't know about at an established range, but I don't see any problem with it just for fun out in the boondocks where no one else is around (I'm so glad I live near national forest and BLM land).

I've never bump-fired a gun, but it sounds kind of fun. I saw a "bump-stock" being used on YouTube for bump-firing an AK (I think). Seriously...it looked fun.

Edit: @Gendo Slide fire...that's what it's called...thanks!...just looked it up on YT. Plenty of videos.

gendoikari87 wrote:Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

Fully auto is legal. Fill out your form 1 and pay your tax and find a transferable firearm. Nothing any civilian has any need for other than to play with so that, to me, is a pretty minimal burden.

As for these things, I don't want to be anywhere near one.

If I ever start trolling right-wing gun sites, my screen name is going to be "BumpfireBubba".

I'm not saying I'd ever want to own one or pay for the ammo, but it seems like a lot of fun.

wlewisiii wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

Fully auto is legal. Fill out your form 1 and pay your tax and find a transferable firearm. Nothing any civilian has any need for other than to play with so that, to me, is a pretty minimal burden.

As for these things, I don't want to be anywhere near one.

I thought you had to have an FFL? Isn't the form and tax stamp just for silencers and the like?

4:28

"When hope isn't part of your plan"

Sounds like a Romney slogan.

(I still want to try it. Maybe next time I'm in Vegas I'll scratch my fully automatic itch at a rent-a-gun range.)

gendoikari87 wrote:

wlewisiii wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

Fully auto is legal. Fill out your form 1 and pay your tax and find a transferable firearm. Nothing any civilian has any need for other than to play with so that, to me, is a pretty minimal burden.

As for these things, I don't want to be anywhere near one.

I thought you had to have an FFL? Isn't the form and tax stamp just for silencers and the like?

no, it's for any class 3.

I've got no beef with the slide fire system, but then I firmly believe that full auto shouldn't be illegal either. I do think that the more "traditional" bump firing is pretty dumb, since it is typically done from the hip, and most times there is not a firm grip to control where the projectiles are going.

The slide fire system can be much more easily controlled, and if used responsibly, it is perfectly safe.

The whole theory behind full auto being included under the NFA of '34 was that it had no military application in small arms at the time (see, I believe it was Brown in 1939? ) . Well, that is absolutely no longer true, as almost all modern military small arms are selective fire. The same is true now of SBRs, SBS, and suppressors. All of these are now in common usage, not only with US armed forces, but with militaries all over the world.

gendoikari87 wrote:

wlewisiii wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:Slide fire. Number two reason why full auto should be legal.

Fully auto is legal. Fill out your form 1 and pay your tax and find a transferable firearm. Nothing any civilian has any need for other than to play with so that, to me, is a pretty minimal burden.

As for these things, I don't want to be anywhere near one.

I thought you had to have an FFL? Isn't the form and tax stamp just for silencers and the like?

No, any full auto that was legally registered before it was closed by the Hughes amendment can be owned by you or I. You need the form 1 (the kicker there is the Chief LEO signature), tax stamp and be legal according to local laws. Wisconsin, forex, simply requires you be ok by federal law. Washington state has a local ban on them and on even simple possession of parts for a full auto firearm. It's expensive and there are hoops to jump through, but, if I had the coin, getting the M2 selective fire carbine that I'd like is no more difficult than getting a SBR.

Looks fun! I don't see a problem.

JamesH wrote: (I still want to try it. Maybe next time I'm in Vegas I'll scratch my fully automatic itch at a rent-a-gun range.)

Go online and look up The Gun Store in Vegas. See how much those assholes are charging for ammo and rental. Screw that. Semi-Auto is fine.

wlewisiii wrote:No, any full auto that was legally registered before it was closed by the Hughes amendment can be owned by you or I. You need the form 1 (the kicker there is the Chief LEO signature), tax stamp and be legal according to local laws. Wisconsin, forex, simply requires you be ok by federal law. Washington state has a local ban on them and on even simple possession of parts for a full auto firearm. It's expensive and there are hoops to jump through, but, if I had the coin, getting the M2 selective fire carbine that I'd like is no more difficult than getting a SBR.

I don't know about the Chief LEO issue. I know in Florida, you can create either a living trust, corporation, or LLC, and put the Class 3 item into the trust/corp/LLC as you normally would anything else. It requires some clear language in the trust to do this and there are companies that charge $500 to create the trust documents required. My working in a law office means I can create them myself for free. I know someone else on here was looking to get the trust setup. I'm hoping to get a look at one that has been created so I can see what the specific language is to include.

Here is my argument for all of this. I should have put it up front. Do you need automatic fire? No. Is it illegal? No. It's legal as long as you follow the law and are willing to pay for it. I think that's a pretty good limit by itself. I don't want some redneck backwards hick or innercity drug lord able to buy a system that essentially does something that is illegal without the right paperwork. Making it expensive makes it difficult to get and thus safer. Is it your right to bear arms? Constitution says so. Doesn't say you need to be able to pump out 10 rounds before the first spent casing hits the ground. Bump fire/slide fire is just a creative way to get around a good law. I say require a Class 3 stamp for it and let people pay the extra money to buy a registered system. It will give people safe and restricted access to the firing speeds they want, and it will allow it at a fraction of the cost it would for a pre 86 weapon.

Rather than waste energy on bump fire, I'd rather go after the Hughes Amendment.

punkinlobber wrote:Looks fun! I don't see a problem.

I do, buy ammo for it or try reloading to feed its enormous hunger. I'd rather have a superb single shot rifle that would put 5 shots into the same hole at 200 meters.

I don't want some redneck backwards hick or innercity drug lord able to buy a system that essentially does something that is illegal without the right paperwork.

yeah because they totally can't get fully auto weapons without any of the legal hassle's we go through now.

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah because they totally can't get fully auto weapons without any of the legal hassle's we go through now.

Doesn't mean we should make it easier. Having an illegal firearm like that can carry some serious time.

JamesH wrote:4:28

"When hope isn't part of your plan"

Sounds like a Romney slogan.

(I still want to try it. Maybe next time I'm in Vegas I'll scratch my fully automatic itch at a rent-a-gun range.)

i found it highly over rated... disappointing actually...the first round may be on, but every other in the burst was all over the place...i would expect a bubba deluxe (bump / slide fire) to be even worse. Expensive too.

inmediasres wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah because they totally can't get fully auto weapons without any of the legal hassle's we go through now.

Doesn't mean we should make it easier. Having an illegal a firearm illegally like that can carry some serious time.

fixed it for you

inmediasres wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah because they totally can't get fully auto weapons without any of the legal hassle's we go through now.

Doesn't mean we should make it easier. Having an illegal firearm like that can carry some serious time.

Why? if you are responsible enough to own a firearm, you are responsible enough to own a firearm. Period. if you aren't, you aren't and shouldn't.

Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they do something otherwise.

inmediasres wrote:Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they do something otherwise.

Then we should ban all guns then. Drawing the line at Fully automatic is disingenuous at best if not outright arbitrary. Can we not do damage with semi-automatic rifles? are they flawless? no more so than any other gun. A case could be made for bolt actions, maybe. Point is a gun, is a gun, is a gun. You allow them, or you don't.

gendoikari87 wrote:

inmediasres wrote:Everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner until they do something otherwise.

Then we should ban all guns then. Drawing the line at Fully automatic is disingenuous at best if not outright arbitrary. Can we not do damage with semi-automatic rifles? are they flawless? no more so than any other gun. A case could be made for bolt actions, maybe. Point is a gun, is a gun, is a gun. You allow them, or you don't.

But it's not that black and white. The destructive capabilities of an automatic weapon are significantly greater than those of a semi-auto weapon. Trying to shoot a target at 50 yards with a Glock 34 isn't the easiest thing in the world. However, if I give you an MP5k with a 30 round clip, you'll most likely hit that target and decimate anything within its immediate vicinity. Some will probably cite the case in Arizona last years with Giffords as an example of where a semi-auto weapon is just as deadly. That's a fair point. I would then ask how much worse things would have been had an automatic weapon been in his possession. The fact is that those weapons were designed specifically for destroying life more efficiently than a semi-auto weapon.