Thursday, October 5, 2017

Bump Stock Ban

NRA is endorsing a bump stock ban (these were approved by Obama's BATF).  In some abstract sense, a ban on bump stocks is wrong, especially because so many questions remain about what happened: Was this an ISIS operation (unlikely), Antifa (much less likely), previously unrecognized mental illness (becoming more plausible), 6 sigmas from normal reaction to Valium (possible)?  The Clark County Sheriff is admitting it does not look like Paddock was alone on this.  Still wondering about this:
Other lines of inquiry the FBI and Las Vegas police are investigating include what Paddock did in the hour between shooting a security guard and his room being breached by officers. Paddock was found dead after a SWAT team breached his door, but it is unclear when he took his own life. [emphasis added]

In practice the two primary purposes of the Second Amendment (rebellion against a tyrannical government, personal self-defense) seem liitle if any affected by banning what is primarily a nearly useless toy accessory.  I can't see any great advantage for self-defense and for rebellion there are enough machine guns and black powder cannon in militia hands.  Such a ban also makes it easier to ignore calls for semiauto bans for the RINOs in Congress.  But yes, it makes any judicial challenge to the Hughes Amendment and the National Firearms Act much harder.


  1. I hope the NRA will seek to trade a gun stock ban for concealed carry reciprocity. Now is the time to bargain.

    A bump stock reclassification to NFA makes sense, since it is just a way to make a machine gun that isn't covered by current laws. But we should not give an inch without getting an inch somewhere else.

  2. Since "well-regulated" means "hitting the target" and since bump stocks make that more difficult...