Poll: would you trade bump fire stocks for national reciprocity?

[tacticalreload]

Absolutely. To me bump fire is pretty much useless. I am concerned about the "slippery slope" of outlawing accessories, but, pragmatically speaking it will be hard to get everything without giving up something up.

Really? The gun control advocates do it all the time. I'm pretty sure they have never once "compromised" and given something up to get something.

The purpose of NATIONAL reciprocity would be just that - to carry in NY, NJ, CA, etc.

Unless there is a national Federal concealed carry laws (which carries its own set of problems), reciprocity will do nothing to mandate what the states can and cannot do to restrict CCW. I can guaran-damn-ty that states that don't want you to carry will make it much more restrictive once the Feds allow you to carry there. You don't think that NJ or NYC or MD are going to change the concealed carry laws to make it as much of a pain in the ass as possible to actually exercise your ability to do so? Even if nothing changed, you'd be subject to stupid laws like magazine limits and JHP bans and the like once you cross certain borders.

National reciprocity would be far better, but far from good.

[BobGun]

I voted no because the Left will never trade anything. They will continue to take until everything is banned. I do not own a bump fire stock or any of the other types of trigger devices. In fact until Clinton banned AR style rifles I never had or wanted one. I now have several because the left does not want me to have them.

Hell No.

[BobGun]

I read in another thread someone asked whether the .gov would compensate the owners of Bump-Fire stock. This is the reason the .gov wants the ATF to reclassify them as an NFA item. They can make the cost prohibitive and then everyone will have to get rid of them and it will not cost the .gov anything. When the NFA was passed my father had a Thompson FA which he had to sell because he could not afford the cost to register it at that time $200.00 was a lot of money. Why would anyone spend $200.00 to keep a bump-fire stock? This would restrict everyone but the elite from owning one.

[SgtRecon]

Well, my thoughts are the left has already won, has us fighting against each other split nearly 50/50 with "the take no prisoners" side and the "tit for tat" Side

Personally the first time I saw a bump fire I thought it meant trouble down the road, about as usefull as the Glock rail bayonet.more goofy useless shit marketed to Tier 1 basement dwelling commandos. Also I never bought the it's not a modification (although the ATF even says this) we should all be calling them out for approving it before we have a civil war about its usefulness or non usefulness.

putting something on anything is a modification, if I put drag pipes on a harley it is a modification ect...ect...

they are probably going away one way or another, maybe 50% receivers also ......Id rather have a workable national reciprocity than either of them, suppressors would be a plus , but that ain't happening soon either

[Hodgie]

Well the latest new from the GOA which came to me via e-mail about an hour ago says that the Republicans have gone ahead and taken 50 state cc reciprocity completely off the table. When will all gun owners learn that there is no COMPROMISE when it comes to gun rights with the anti gunners. The more you give them the more they take.

[buckengr]

Hell no! No compromises for anything. Period. Get the Fudds out of NRA leadership

We must only accept no-loss, positive gains from here on out.

The Hughes amendment should be repealed.

[gummy jones]

Some one please correct me if I'm wrong but we endlessly defend (rightfully so) msrs as crucial self defense pieces that are entirely different from heavily regulated machine guns. We make memes about stupid media folk who don't know the difference. Cranks and bump fire stocks are designed as an alternative to those regulated items and most of us, at least up until last week, would have agreed that they are a tool designed to skirt the nfa rules and allow the function of an msr to be altered in a way that allows it to perform similarly (kind of) to that which we make fun of liberals for confusing our rifles with.

I'm not a fan banning inanimate objects. Slippery slopes are real, especially with elitist oligarchs. I'm a Christian who believes we live in a fallen world with real evil at work constantly - a scum bag killed those folks, not a gun and certainly not a stock, but do 50 percent of you actually maintain that a function altering device like a bump fire is exactly the same as a magazine or flashlight or single point sling or any other accessory?

In my mind they are very different - way more so than pistol braces, etc. Again, let me emphasize that I am not saying bans are reasonable because of the difference, I'm just saying I don't easily get from bump fire stocks to normal capacity magazines. Pelosi wanted what she wants 2 weeks ago, 2 years ago and 2 decades ago - it's the same playbook. When she is gone there will be another loon to take her place.

The hysteria all around is palpable and as one who does not think our main lobbyist allies have given up, I'm trying to take a deep breath. Bans aside, heck pretend I'm asking this September 17th, explain how i am wrong that a bump fire and forward grip are different. I'm asking in earnest. Yes, 'merica is an acceptable answer, I'm just wondering if there are others.

Flame suit on

[ExFlyinguy]

In my mind & I assume others as well. I see the Hughes amendment(And NFA) as unconstitutional. New inventions that are lawful ease the Governments over-reach

[ArcticSplash]

In my mind & I assume others as well. I see the Hughes amendment(And NFA) as unconstitutional. New inventions that are lawful ease the Governments over-reach

You may see it that way.

But the BATF doesn't.
The FBI doesn't.
The PSP doesn't.
CP Court doesn't.
Fed Court doesn't.
SCOPA doesn't. (psst where was everybody when they let THREE Democrats in to this court.. now we have nothing to protect us from UFA being wiped out by a judge)
And SCOTUS doesn't.

Unless you're going to replace all those institutions from your hilltop--meh.

[ExFlyinguy]

You may see it that way.

But the BATF doesn't.
The FBI doesn't.
The PSP doesn't.
CP Court doesn't.
Fed Court doesn't.
SCOPA doesn't. (psst where was everybody when they let THREE Democrats in to this court.. now we have nothing to protect us from UFA being wiped out by a judge)
And SCOTUS doesn't.

Unless you're going to replace all those institutions from your hilltop--meh.

HUH???

*First my apology- I was responding to gummy's post/question and failed to quote it. I still fail to see your point... because I was trying to point out that despite what FBI, ATF SCOTUS may deem constitutional many of us disagree- that whole "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" thingy therefore when LAWFUL alternatives to lost rights are presented it eases the over-reach.