# 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:** 6
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/101 "2017-10-05T21:04:34Z")
Googling for “convicted of illegally possessing a short-barreled rifle”, I found [this interesting discussion](http://plaza.ufl.edu/jpratt87/us_v_doe.htm), which included a quote from a court case: > [@](#): > > In Thompson/Center Arms Company v. U.S., 112 S.Ct. 2102, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gun manufacturer, who had been ordered by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to pay a $200 tax on each �Contender Carbine kit� it manufactured. The kit contained a 21 inch rifle barrel and a buttstock, and was made to be used in conjunction with the company�s �Contender Pistol,� which contained a 10 inch barrel. The kit was intended to provide hunters with a versatile sporting firearm, which could be readily and easily converted from a pistol to a rifle and vise versa. The BATFE learned that Thompson/Center had distributed kits which contained both the pistol and the conversion parts and advised the company that the sale of both the Contender pistol and the carbine conversion kit could constitute the manufacture of a short barreled rifle. The BATFE pointed out that assembling the pistol�s receiver and 10 inch pistol barrel and the conversion kit�s buttstock would be a violation of the National Firearms Act. Thompson/Center stopped its production of the kit, paid a single $200 tax, and then filed a refund claim with the BATFE. Over 6 months elapsed without any action taken by the BATFE, and Thompson/Center invoked the Tucker Act, suing for a refund in the Claims Court. Thompson/Center Arms Co. argued that since its pistol and kit were not assembled into a short barreled rifle at the time of sale, the items had not been �made� into a firearm as defined by the NFA, and thus the $200 tax did not apply. Thompson/Center pointed out that, at the suggestion of the BATFE, the kit had been distributed with warning labels advising consumers of the illegality of assembling the buttstock, receiver, and pistol barrel. **The government argued that if a consumer only possessed 1 receiver but both the 10 inch and 21 inch barrels, the firearm was subject to the NFA. The BATFE stated that, in its opinion, two receivers needed to be possessed, one for the pistol and the other for the rifle.** So it seems even the government would agree that someone in possession of multiple receivers would not automatically be in possession of a SBR just because they had some possible combination of parts that could be made into a SBR. The intent of the owner would matter. And though I am loathe to link to WingNutDaily, it’s relevant: [National Guardsman's career destroyed by ATF | WND | by Jeff Knox](http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276693/) in that the case cited above was actually reversed on appeal. Other examples of people being convicted relate to the guns actually being put together: > **[L.A. County sheriff's deputy to plead guilty to building assault rifle](https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-deputy-20140429-story.html)** > > Richard White Piquette's plea agreement is the first by one of the 20 sheriff's officials charged or indicted recently in an ongoing federal investigation of the Sheriff's Department. > **[Feds accuse Washington man of possessing illegal rifle](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/feds-accuse-washington-man-of-possessing-illegal-rifle/)** > > FBI agents investigating domestic terrorism and threats against the government have arrested a Washington man for possessing an illegal rifle > **[Watch That Barrel Length: SBR Edition](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/25/watch-barrel-length-sbr-edition/)** > > The St.Lucie County Sheriff’s Office has posted an announcement on their Facebook page describing a sting operation in which they cooperated with ATF agents to purchase an unregistered SBR from a local trying to sell the rifle online.Peter Chirco,... So, again, not a huge worry. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/102 "2017-10-05T21:06:10Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > But that wasn’t the scenario you posited above. From what we see in that link, he had only one gun that could be mounted with the stock to form the short barrelled rifle. There were no other indications that he had any other weapons that could accommodate the stock. Without that, the only reasonable use he had for the stock was to make the SBR. > > And that was from 2007. If you have to go back 7 years to find yet another case that doesn’t actually represent your hypothetical, I again assert that I don’t see this as a big problem. [Here](https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/prosecution-punishment-troubling-case-albert-kwan) is another article on the Kwan conviction that makes it even more clear that it is similar to the scenario I described: > [@](#): > > The ATF claimed … that Kwan’s possession of a detachable shoulder stock for one of his legally owned submachine guns made a semi-auto pistol he owned, which could also accept the detachable stock, an unregistered “short-barreled rifle.” Kwan owned two H&K pistols. It was perfectly legal to attach this stock to one of them, because it was already a registered Class 3 firearm, but not legal to attach it to the other semi-auto pistol. The stock was capable of physically being attached to either one, so the ATF charged him with possessing an unregistered SBR. That you “don’t see this as a big problem” is absolutely no comfort to me or Mr. Kwan. You asked if it has happened before. The answer is that it has. ---
**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, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/103 "2017-10-05T21:12:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The stock was capable of physically being attached to either one, so the ATF charged him with possessing an unregistered SBR. That you “don’t see this as a big problem” is absolutely no comfort to me or Mr. Kwan. > > You asked if it has happened before. The answer is that it has. See my link above, this was reversed on appeal, thus re-enforcing the rules as discussed above. Can you find any more recent examples that would suggest the government is routinely trying to apply these rules improperly? ---
**Author:** ![mixdenny](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mixdenny/32/2962_2.png) [@mixdenny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mixdenny)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/104 "2017-10-05T21:13:12Z")
> [@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: Banning bump fire stocks probably would not even need a law. The BATF generates ipso facto law just by writing a letter to an individual or company addressing an issue, or a memorandum for publication. If the matter is resolved in the letter, it is up to others to find this information, it is not generally published although collections of letters are periodically made available. When the Slide Fire was submitted for review, it was not as though the company was asking for an exemption of some sort. They were just asking the BATF to confirm that the Slide Fire was already legal, as it still required the finger to press the trigger for each round fired. It has been a while since I have read that letter, but it is typical in these cases for the BATF writer to state, “in my opinion…”, leaving some wiggle room if needed. To alter the basis of that ruling would, as I see it, require a completely new definition of “one squeeze, one shot”, a simple physical act. However, I think the BATF can single out any one product and issue a memorandum to change the item’s classification after some waiting, or amnesty period. They did this with the Street Sweeper back in the early 1990s, which had been legal for 15 years or so. It did not break any specific laws, but the collection of parts - a high capacity shotgun with spring rotated magazine feed just looked dangerous. > **[Armsel Striker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armsel_Striker)** > > The Armsel Striker, also known as the Sentinel Arms Co Striker-12, Protecta, Protecta Bulldog and SWD Street Sweeper is a 12-gauge shotgun with a revolving cylinder that was designed for riot control and combat. > The Armsel Striker was designed by Hilton R. Walker, a Zimbabwean (formerly Rhodesian) citizen, in 1981. Walker subsequently emigrated to South Africa, bringing with him the design for the Striker shotgun. His shotgun became a success and was exported to various parts of the world, despi... I cannot recall what set off the BATF, but they finally said, “No. Hell, no.” and declared it a destructive device. The damn Street Sweeper was so clumsy to load (you had to disassemble the attached magazine, dump out the empty shells, reload the magazine, and wind up the spring) and bulky to carry that no criminal would want to use one anyway. Back when I was shooting in 3 gun matches, I used a Baikal magazine fed shotgun. It used removable magazines with 6 rounds and could be swapped out as fast as you practiced to do. It could fire much, much faster then any Street Sweeper and is perfectly legal, as is the Kalashnikov version. I switched to an FN with a conventional tube magazine. At the time it was the world’s fastest semi auto shotgun, you could empty the 6 round mag in less then 2 seconds. Today the Fostech makes that claim and can empty its 30 round drum in 8 seconds. Completely legal as opposed to the gawd awful Street Sweeper, but that is the power of the BATF. I actually tried to bump fire the FN, but quit after 2 rounds as it was already climbing for the sky. Want some more fun? Here is a double barreled AK “Gatling gun”, tell me that isn’t intimidating. And I have seem smaller caliber versions with 4 barrels. All legal as long as you do not motorize the hand crank. Dennis ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/105 "2017-10-05T21:16:23Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > See my link above, this was reversed on appeal, thus re-enforcing the rules as discussed above. Can you find any more recent examples that would suggest the government is routinely trying to apply these rules improperly? “Reversed on appeal” costs time and money. It also assumes you had the money to spend on appeals. How many appeals can you afford to make before you give up and do what the BATFE/government wants? ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/106 "2017-10-05T21:16:46Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > … > So it seems even the government would agree that someone in possession of multiple receivers would not automatically be in possession of a SBR just because they had some possible combination of parts that could be made into a SBR. The intent of the owner would matter. > … It may surprise you, but consistency is not one of the government’s strong suits. Yes, in the Thompson Contender case, “the government” was made to acknowledge, via the courts, that they couldn’t convict people for possessing parts that might be assembled into an illegal configuration. That happened in 1992. And then, 15 years later, “the government” did it anyways, to Mr. Kwan. That’s why the second article I linked to said “Both accusations blatantly disregarded ATF policy and established legal precedents.” You might expect that the ATF agents would know about the ATF policies and established legal precedent, but you’d be wrong. The ATF is a collection of imbeciles, that regularly ruins people’s lives and livelihoods with their own contradictory rules and rulings. They’ve made so many convoluted rules and rulings, that they get confused by them regularly. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/107 "2017-10-05T21:24:43Z")
I gotta say, if you conservatives wanted to prove “this happens so vanishingly infrequently that it’s definitely not an actual problem that anyone needs to worry about”, then you’re doing a bangup job. ---
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/108 "2017-10-05T21:29:54Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I gotta say, if you conservatives wanted to prove “this happens so vanishingly infrequently that it’s definitely not an actual problem that anyone needs to worry about”, then you’re doing a bangup job. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert, or even aware of, every case the ATF brings. I don’t know how frequently it happens. Horatius’ original question was “Have they ever actually done that, though?” I was answering that question. Yes, they’ve actually done that. The charges resulted in a conviction. The conviction was later overturned by an appeals court. The net effect was to thoroughly wreck Mr. Kwan’s life and livelihood. But you don’t think I should be concerned because I don’t know the frequency with which the government fucks up so badly that it effectively destroys the life of an innocent man? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/109 "2017-10-05T21:36:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I certainly don’t claim to be an expert, or even aware of, every case the ATF brings. I don’t know how frequently it happens. Horatius’ original question was “Have they ever actually done that, though?” > > I was answering that question. Yes, they’ve actually done that. The charges resulted in a conviction. The conviction was later overturned by an appeals court. The net effect was to thoroughly wreck Mr. Kwan’s life and livelihood. But you don’t think I should be concerned because I don’t know the frequency with which the government fucks up so badly that it effectively destroys the life of an innocent man? :dubious: With all due respect, “an innocent man” is one guy. I’d wager that _every single law in existence_ has, on its own power, fucked up the life of at least one single guy. This has led me to factor in width and breadth of impact when being concerned about the impact of things. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/110 "2017-10-05T21:40:19Z")
In a country that sells millions of guns and gun accessories every year, I don’t think finding one example in 15 years of the ATF screwing up in this way to be so “regular” as to require the repeal of a legal doctrine that, much more regularly, is applied in the way it is supposed to be applied. If you want to moan about other rules the ATF has allegedly screwed up, go for it, but I stand by my conclusion that your original offer to swap this for banning bump stocks is a bad trade off. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/111 "2017-10-05T21:42:56Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > … I stand by my conclusion that your original offer to swap this for banning bump stocks is a bad trade off. Fine, let’s try another one (one that I think has a decent chance of becoming law): We’ll make SlideFire stocks illegal / very tightly controlled in exchange for easing the restrictions on suppressors. Deal? There’s a good chance the NRA is going to offer Congressional Democrats a deal very close to that one. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/112 "2017-10-05T21:45:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Fine, let’s try another one (one that I think has a decent chance of becoming law): > > We’ll make SlideFire stocks illegal / very tightly controlled in exchange for easing the restrictions on suppressors. Deal? There’s a good chance the NRA is going to offer Congressional Democrats a deal very close to that one. Is there a pressing need to tie one action to another at all? Or are these just abstract questions to kill time? Because I support asking abstract questions to kill time. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/113 "2017-10-05T21:46:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Really, you don’t even need a wooden board - you can do the same thing with a pistol and [your belt loop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZCO-06qRgY). It’s just very inaccurate, dangerous, and at best a novelty. “Inaccurate, dangerous, and at best a novelty”. Doesn’t that apply to bump stocks themselves? I’m no expert, but that was the gist I got from hearing about them over the last few days. > [@Horatius](#): > > This won’t stop every possible conceivable use of these devices in crimes like we just saw in Las Vegas, but it would likely cut down on them. Cut down on what, exactly? How many crimes are actually committed with bump stocks in a given decade? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/114 "2017-10-05T21:49:59Z")
Meh. If you were serious about reducing violence, you’d forget about guns and just legalize drugs. ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/115 "2017-10-05T22:00:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Fine, let’s try another one (one that I think has a decent chance of becoming law): > > We’ll make SlideFire stocks illegal / very tightly controlled in exchange for easing the restrictions on suppressors. Deal? There’s a good chance the NRA is going to offer Congressional Democrats a deal very close to that one. Why are you fixated on horse trading proposals, as though you (or gun owners generally) are owed concessions for some reason. You aren’t. You are owed what you can justify with facts and reason, just like everyone else. When I hear someone turning to these negotiation tactics that would make bad used car salesmen blush, what I hear is that I have totally won on substance; but the other side is either trying to save face or trying to fuck me over for a reason I may not fully understand. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/116 "2017-10-05T22:15:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why are you fixated on horse trading proposals, as though you (or gun owners generally) are owed concessions for some reason. You aren’t. You are owed what you can justify with facts and reason, just like everyone else. > > When I hear someone turning to these negotiation tactics that would make bad used car salesmen blush, what I hear is that I have totally won on substance; but the other side is either trying to save face or trying to fuck me over for a reason I may not fully understand. Hahahaha. Of course you don’t understand it, it’s simply a negotiation tactic, a compromise. Legislators do that all the time. A little for you, a little for me, a little more for you, a little more for me, and eventually we have a deal. No one get 100% of what they what, but 70% of what I want and 75% of what you want for sounds OK to me. At least it’s a step in the right direction, if bi-partisanship is what you hope for. Do you know what tactic doesn’t work? Demanding 100% submission from the other side. You want to change the status quo, but you seem to be unwilling/unable to negotiate successfully? You don’t have the votes to get everything you want. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/117 "2017-10-05T22:20:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why are you fixated on horse trading proposals, as though you (or gun owners generally) are owed concessions for some reason. You aren’t. You are owed what you can justify with facts and reason, just like everyone else. Horse trading of proposals is exactly how Congress works, inherently. The question is whether the proposed or simulated negotiation by any given random web poster is within the bounds of political reality. Congress loosening up on suppressors right now in some deal over bump stocks? I doubt it. It seems to me the more likely outcomes are a) Congress agrees to a relatively meaningless but ‘why not?’ ban on at least sale of factory made bump stocks, or b) anti-gun Congresspeople insist on adding other gun control measures the pro-gun side can’t go along with to stall it out and try to make the make the pro-guns look bad. But in general a trade between things like suppressors and bump stocks is not so far from political reality. In contrast to the themes of some posters here like ‘if the pro gun people won’t go along with some stuff “folks” like us want and call “reasonable” then we’ll have to repeal the 2nd amendment’. That’s out to lunch, entirely divorced from political reality. There’s zero evidence of any general groundswell against gun rights because of mass shootings, in who actually gets elected to Congress. If anything the main political dynamic is stirring up more pro-gun feeling where the rubber hits the road in Congress\* in reaction to the anti-gun expressions in the parts of the culture liberals dominate (media, entertainment etc), when these incidents happen. \*driven by fear of general election defeat for Democrats in Trump state/districts, and fear of primary defeats for Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/118 "2017-10-05T22:22:15Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Of course you don’t understand it, it’s simply a negotiation tactic, a compromise. Legislators do that all the time. A little for you, a little for me, a little more for you, a little more for me, and eventually we have a deal. No one get 100% of what they what, but 70% of what I want and 75% of what you want for sounds OK to me. At least it’s a step in the right direction, if bi-partisanship is what you hope for. > > Do you know what tactic doesn’t work? Demanding 100% submission from the other side. You want to change the status quo, but you seem to be unwilling/unable to negotiate successfully? You don’t have the votes to get everything you want. Speaking abstractly, I’ve always thought horsetrading was bullshit and is bad politics. Pork is bad politics. What bi-partisanship actually means is that the sides work together like adults debating and shaping individual laws. Where a consensus can be reached that everyone likes, or at least that a decent majority of people think is fair and tolerable. This doesn’t work nowadays because republicans demand 100% submission from the other side. ---
**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, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/119 "2017-10-05T23:38:44Z")
Let me tell you, I’ve been involved in quite a few policy negotiations in government, and if you think that they look anything like what **HD** is approaching it as, you ought to stop watching House of Cards. Horse trading has its place - at the end of a process to seal a deal. It is not the basis of a deal in itself. Besides, the proposal - aside having no substance behind it - is woefully out of touch with what seem to be the demands on both sides. From the D side, the best alternative to some kind of ban on these devices is to either pick off Republicans who can’t explain why the things shouldn’t be banned. Or maybe watch R’s form a circular firing squad as they bicker among themselves on whether to do anything that may displease their NRA masters. The downside of a tit for tat trade for D’s is they go home and look like sellouts to the NRA. For R’s, if negotiations fall apart they probably shelve their silencer bill for a few months, and then maybe get it passed next summer when people have moved on. But then they also have a bunch of members who have generally spoken in favor of the ban who get to go home and explain why they can’t get anything done. Usually not so bad, but as R’s are very worried about midterm elections, quite a few R’s aren’t looking forward to taking that trip. I don’t think a bump for silencer bill gets 60 votes in the Senate. The downside is too great for D’s, and quite a few R’s probably just want to get this issue behind them rather than fight a battle with rather few rewards and more risks. Dynamics may change, of course, but since nobody can even attempt a rationale why banning these devices is bad policy, other than the OP’s “crackpipes should be legal” principle, is very telling of where the wind is blowing right now. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025/120 "2017-10-06T00:05:39Z")
I agree. Bumps are a loser issue and I’d consider their days being numbered. There really isn’t a good reason for them, and unlike other cosmetic silliness, they actually change the function of a firearm. I wouldn’t object to their banning. Today is not the day machine guns will be legalized and the NFA repealed. If there were some kind of trade proffered, I’d consider that a win. A straight banning is the expectation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bump-stocks-intended-ban/798025.md?page=7)