# Bump stocks intended ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025 "2017-10-05T14:43:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/61 "2017-10-05T16:59:06Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Please give an example of anything else that is banned/illegal that can be very easily put together in 5 minutes using readily obtainable cheap materials. [Lawn darts](https://www.cpsc.gov/content/following-recent-injury-cpsc-reissues-warning-lawn-darts-are-banned-and-should-be-destroyed). The sharp-pointed kind. Lawn darts were banned because several children were killed and injured with them. But anyone – even a crazy person – can buy a gun, or 50 of them. According to a CDC study I saw some time ago, more children are killed by guns in the US than in the **combined total** of all the other first-world countries they studied. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/62 "2017-10-05T17:26:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I propose a trade. Gun owners will have to license bump stocks like supressors and short-barrel rifles. In exchange, the ATF gives up It’s legal theory of ‘constructive possession’. Everyone on board with that? I’m not sure what you mean by “ATF gives up it’s legal theory of constructive possession”. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/63 "2017-10-05T17:35:04Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “ATF gives up it’s legal theory of constructive possession”. [http://www.kaiglelaw.com/florida-criminal-defense/firearm-weapon-offenses/possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-convicted-felon](http://www.kaiglelaw.com/florida-criminal-defense/firearm-weapon-offenses/possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-convicted-felon) > [@](#): > > Constructive Possession > Constructive possession is when the firearm or ammunition is not physically found on your person but is close enough to you so that it can be reasonably assumed that you knew the firearm or ammunition was present and hand the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. If you are a convicted felon and found to be in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition, you will be facing prison time but will not be faced with any minimum mandatory prison sentence. > > … > While actual Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon cases tend to be fairly straightforward as it may be hard to argue that the firearm/ammunition was not yours and that you were not in possession of it if it was found in your hand or in your pocket, constructive possession cases, on the other hand, tend to be rather difficult for the State to prove. > > A classic example of this is when police find the firearm or ammunition in a car or house. Any number of factual situations may make it extremely difficult for the State to prove the Possession of Firearm charge against you. In such situations, details matter! > > Details such as whether or not the car or residence belongs to you, whether or not there were other people in the car or residence, whether or not other people had access to the car or residence, or whether or not other people had been using the car or residence prior to you are all very important factors that need to be addressed. I don’t think I’d make this trade. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/64 "2017-10-05T17:40:42Z")
Well, aren’t short-barreled rifles “carbines”? Historically, for use by mounted soldiers, a kind of hybrid of infantry and cavalry? And who does’t crave an opportunity to hunt deer from horseback? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/65 "2017-10-05T17:47:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No compromise is needed here. I don’t even think licensing of bump stocks is advisable: there’s no good use for them, unlike a case I can see being made for suppressors or short-barreled rifles. I don’t understand. Are you saying that this proposed SlideFire ban is so overwhelmingly likely to pass that the gun controllers don’t need to compromise and throw the RKBA crowd a bone to get them on board? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/66 "2017-10-05T17:54:23Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “ATF gives up it’s legal theory of constructive possession”. The scenario I was thinking of was that someone owns a board, and a pipe, and a few screws, and gets arrested and charged for possessing a machine gun. It’s the same theory that they used to charge [this guy](https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/) with possessing an unregistered SBR: > [@](#): > > As I stated before, one must be VERY careful when entering into the NFA realm, even where an individual does not assemble the firearm into a NFA configuration because of the legal implications under the doctrine of constructive possession. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/67 "2017-10-05T18:13:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The scenario I was thinking of was that someone owns a board, and a pipe, and a few screws, and gets arrested and charged for possessing a machine gun. It’s the same theory that they used to charge [this guy](https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/) with possessing an unregistered SBR: The difference is, there are plenty of other uses out there for “a board, and a pipe, and a few screws”. I’ve got all that in my basement right now, and I’m one of those unarmed hippie Canuck types. With the guy you cited, he had gun-related paraphernalia that had no other purpose than to be attached to the gun, to produce something that would be in violation of the law, absent the proper permits. No amount of “nod nod, wink wink” should be allowed to cover up his liability. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/68 "2017-10-05T18:13:40Z")
Is it too late to jump in with more examples of things that can be trivially made in less than 5 minutes and are illegal? - Printed $100 bill - Photo of naked kid ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/69 "2017-10-05T18:19:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The scenario I was thinking of was that someone owns a board, and a pipe, and a few screws, and gets arrested and charged for possessing a machine gun. It’s the same theory that they used to charge [this guy](https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/) with possessing an unregistered SBR: > [@](#): > > Unfortunately for Mr. Amador, he was selling the H&K SP89 with the accessories that he collected for it, which included a vertical front grip and a shoulder stock. If Mr. Amador merely possessed the vertical grip, the pistol would have to be registered under the NFA as an AOW. However, because he also had a stock, the pistol would have to be registered as a short-barreled rifle, PRIOR to purchasing or possessing the shoulder stock and/or vertical grip. What other legitimate uses do the stock and/or vertical grip have? And don’t play coy games with “legitimate”. You know what’s meant. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/70 "2017-10-05T18:27:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The scenario I was thinking of was that someone owns a board, and a pipe, and a few screws, and gets arrested and charged for possessing a machine gun. It’s the same theory that they used to charge [this guy](https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/9/1/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/) with possessing an unregistered SBR: And if someone owns a board and pipe that are cut to specific lengths, with screw holes that attach it to the gun to convert it to bump-stock style, then that would be something that would be chargeable. Just having board, pipe and screws would not. Just as in your story, if he had a chunk of metal, that would have not gotten him into trouble, but he had chunks of metal that were specifically designed to alter the function of the weapon. But, please, present this choice to the public. Tell the public that they can ban bump-stocks, if they get rid of the laws that prevent people from easily modifying their guns into full auto. I’m sure they’ll be appreciative of that choice, and side with you in a heartbeat. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/71 "2017-10-05T18:27:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t understand. Are you saying that this proposed SlideFire ban is so overwhelmingly likely to pass that the gun controllers don’t need to compromise and throw the RKBA crowd a bone to get them on board? :dubious: There’s no point in horse-trading on some issues. To use different example, someone else on this board proposed that a bill to formalize the DACA program should be paired with a bill to build Trump’s wall on the border. In yet another example, an episode of the Simpsons had a bill to save Springfield (IIRC) had an amendment to fund the obscene arts attached to it. Besides, I think we are living in different universes if you are contending that there’s an important gun rights issue out there that the Republican-controlled Congress is simply ignoring, such that it has to catch a ride on a bill coming out of a national tragedy. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/72 "2017-10-05T18:32:56Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > What other legitimate uses do the stock and/or vertical grip have? And don’t play coy games with “legitimate”. You know what’s meant. I don’t know if Mr. Amador had other guns or not, but in a hypothetical scenario where he also legally owned one or more rifle(s), the VFG and stock could be attached to any of the rifles perfectly legally, but not legally attached to the pistol he was selling. So a “legitimate” use could be to attach them to a rifle. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/73 "2017-10-05T18:39:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > … Besides, I think we are living in different universes if you are contending that there’s an important gun rights issue out there that the Republican-controlled Congress is simply ignoring, such that it has to catch a ride on a bill coming out of a national tragedy. There are several important gun rights issues that Congress is ignoring. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/74 "2017-10-05T18:42:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know if Mr. Amador had other guns or not, but in a hypothetical scenario where he also legally owned one or more rifle(s), the VFG and stock could be attached to any of the rifles perfectly legally, but not legally attached to the pistol he was selling. So a “legitimate” use could be to attach them to a rifle. They can still be attached to the pistol in question. [Constructive possession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_possession) > [@](#): > > A person can be charged with constructive possession of an illegal device if **they possess the otherwise legal material to assemble it**. If a person has in his possession or control the ingredients to make an explosive device, he can be charged with constructive possession of that device. So even if the stock and grip can be fitted to other firearms, what matters is they can be fitted to that particular firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/75 "2017-10-05T18:44:59Z")
By the way, the issue **HD** is referring to pertains to overturning a court ruling on a case relating to a drug dealer. Basically, police intercepted six large barrels of marijuana just outside of St. Louis. Police allowed the delivery of the barrels to occur, and Douglas Turnbough and his girlfriend took them home. Police raided the home, sized more drugs, and several firearms, including a homemade .25 pistol with no serial numbers that was in the master bedroom. Among other issues, Turnbough challenged his conviction on possession of the illegal pistol, arguing that the Government never proved that he actually possessed the gun found in the house that he lived in with his girlfriend. Turnbough appears to basically be saying, “Just because you found it in the bedroom that I sleep in, it still isn’t mine, and you should blame my girlfriend and daughter for possessing it.” During the trial, the Government presented its case to the jury that by his living in the house, and coming and going as he pleased, it is reasonable to believe that Turnbough exercised “dominion and control” over the illegal gun. I take it that **HD** disagrees, and thinks that there ought to be more evidence that this drug dealer (or others who may find themselves in similar circumstances) had actual physical possession of the illegal weapon before they could be convicted of such crime. **HD** , feel free to correct me. It seems to me that such a change could have massive implications for enforcement of many laws, for example, if Joe Blow is pulled over for speeding and a rocket launcher is found in his trunk, should police not be able to charge him with possession if his fingerprints aren’t on the rocket launcher? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/76 "2017-10-05T18:46:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There are several important gun rights issues that Congress is ignoring. Rat bastards! What does the NRA pay them for??? ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/77 "2017-10-05T19:02:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know if Mr. Amador had other guns or not, but in a hypothetical scenario where he also legally owned one or more rifle(s), the VFG and stock could be attached to any of the rifles perfectly legally, but not legally attached to the pistol he was selling. So a “legitimate” use could be to attach them to a rifle. But he wasn’t charged with merely possessing the stock, in conjunction with all his other gun-related items. He got nailed by selling it, solely in conjunction with the pistol variant for which it would have been illegal. There would be little reason for someone to sell, or to buy, such a collection of parts, unless they intended to combine them into the restricted weapon. No amount of, “Now now, don’t you dare do this simple and convenient thing with these parts, because that would be naughty!” on his part can absolve him. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/78 "2017-10-05T19:10:10Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > They can still be attached to the pistol in question. > [Constructive possession](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_possession) > > So even if the stock and grip can be fitted to other firearms, what matters is they can be fitted to that particular firearm. Yes, that’s my point. Used like that, it’s a stupid-ass theory that can get people in trouble for owning stuff with perfectly legal uses. That’s why I’d like to see it go away, and I’d be willing to trade SlideFires for it. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … > I take it that **HD** disagrees, and thinks that there ought to be more evidence that this drug dealer (or others who may find themselves in similar circumstances) had actual physical possession of the illegal weapon before they could be convicted of such crime. **HD** , feel free to correct me. > … IANAL, but my layman’s understanding is that there are basically two uses for ‘constructive possession’. One is, as you stated, dealing with possession of something. If the police find something illegal in your car, or in your house, they’re able to argue that you possessed it because you possessed the car or the house, even though they don’t have any evidence that you actually held it in your hands or carried it on your person. I don’t really have any objections to that (which is, I think, the answer to your question above). The other use of ‘constructive possession’ is what **running coach** pointed out above. You have all the parts to make a machine gun / SBR / AOW. Even though they’re not assembled into that illegal thing, the ATF can charge you with “constructive possession” of it because you have all the parts to make it. When a board and pipe and screws can be turned into a machine gun, then possession of the board and pipe and screws is “constructive possession” of a machine gun. THAT is the legal theory / interpretation that I’d like to see done away with because it leads to stupid results. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/79 "2017-10-05T19:12:32Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > But he wasn’t charged with merely possessing the stock, in conjunction with all his other gun-related items. He got nailed by selling it, solely in conjunction with the pistol variant for which it would have been illegal. There would be little reason for someone to sell, or to buy, such a collection of parts, unless they intended to combine them into the restricted weapon. No amount of, “Now now, don’t you dare do this simple and convenient thing with these parts, because that would be naughty!” on his part can absolve him. The police only became aware of his possession when he tried to sell it, but the illegal act was the possession, not the sale, at least, that’s my understanding. ETA: not that I think this is the case in Mr. Amador’s situation, but I’ve been party to a number of transactions where unrelated firearm parts / accessories were thrown in to sweeten the deal. “I’ll sell you this rifle for $400”. “Meh, it’s only worth $350.” “What if I throw in this custom leather holster too. Do you own a Glock?” “Yeah, OK, deal.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/80 "2017-10-05T19:13:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Rat bastards! What does the NRA pay them for??? I know, right? I feel like we’re not really getting our money’s worth. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025.md?page=5)