Bump fire stocks

[Holland&Holland]

Super weird, bro.

Sorry, Deny Green Vikings reference. Some jokes bomb.

[Ghost]

Super weird, bro.

Sorry, Deny Green Vikings reference. Some jokes bomb.

[Holland&Holland]

Wow, I didn’t realize posting what I did would be so controversial!

I’ve worked with both GOCRA and the Gun Owners Caucus, but have taken a step back from the caucus for reasons I won’t get into here. I’m just a member like many others and am no longer part of the leadership team. My avatar is still the caucus logo simply because I haven’t gotten around to changing it. I suppose I should change it at some point to avoid confusion. My opinions are my own, and don’t reflect any organization I might be a member of, or that I’ve worked with in the past.

One thing for certain though is I’m not anti-gun. That accusation is beyond absurd!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel it is very controversial and not the position I would expect our pro gun groups to take on a public forum.

I trust you can in understand why it would seem to be coming from such a source?

I apologize for assuming it was more than a personal opinion. I do still vehemently disagree with your position.

[Ghost]

So what’s th strategy to fend off a bumpstock ruling in this state? Obviously it’s dependent on the feds losing their battle.

I still think it comes down to the trigger activator vs finger. If the finger is all that’s needed then I am a trigger activator and should be banned.

[OldmanFCSA]

So the spring i put in bump-fire stock to push action forward, without the need to push it forward manually, may not be legal?

So many ways to improve on fire rate.

[Ghost]

So the spring i put in bump-fire stock to push action forward, without the need to push it forward manually, may not be legal?

So many ways to improve on fire rate.

Wasn’t that why the Akins Accelerator wasn’t approved?

[OldmanFCSA]

That is one of many reasons why i never had a use for bump-fire type stocks, such a fine line between legal and illegal. Why create an issue when its not needed, finger-firing can waste ammo faster than i can load it and do it more accurately than any bump-fire type stock.

YMMV.

[Ghost]

That is one of many reasons why i never had a use for bump-fire type stocks, such a fine line between legal and illegal. Why create an issue when its not needed, finger-firing can waste ammo faster than i can load it and do it more accurately than any bump-fire type stock.

YMMV.

Fully agree with you.

My issue is a government who says something is legal then arbitrarily decides it’s not. Turn them in or cut them up, no grandfathering and no compensation. On a magic day law abiding citizens become felons due to no fault of their own.

[bstrawse]

I'd also like to point out that bump stocks are *probably* already illegal in MN, although there's been no test case yet. Unlike the federal machine gun ban, MN also classifies "trigger activators" as machine guns:

"Trigger activator" means a removable manual or power driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that, when attached to a firearm, the rate at which the trigger may be pulled increases and the rate of fire of the firearm increases to that of a machine gun.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.67

A bump stock is a removable device that was specifically constructed and designed to increase the rate of fire to that of a machine gun when attached to a semi-auto firearm. The only ambiguity is the meaning of "trigger activating". Technically, the stock doesn't activate the trigger directly. Some other object that isn't a part of the bump stock must be used as a mechanical link between the finger stop on the stock and the guns trigger. In theory that object could be anything, but in practice it's pretty much always the operators finger. So the legal question is does the absence of the mechanical linkage between bump stock and trigger let bump stocks "off the hook" as being trigger activators. My humble guess is no.

A firearm thats completed more than 80% is considered to be a firearm. A bump stock, minus the linkage that activates the trigger (the shooters finger) is most certainly more than 80% complete. So my guess is that if a test case were to occur, the courts would find bump stocks illegal in MN.

For those who come back with a counter argument of belt loops, a belt loop isn't installed on the firearm, where a bump stock is. For those who come back with rubber bands or shoe laces or similar devices installed externally to the firearm, those devices were not specifically designed and constructed to increase the rate of fire of a firearm, where a bump stock is. Bump stocks *probably* meet the statutory definition of a trigger activator, but none of the other things people commonly use to bump fire a gun do. A bump stock is unique in that it is both installed on the firearm, and was specifically designed to increase the rate at which it can be fired by most operators.

It's possible a good lawyer could argue the point that because bump stocks lack the linkage that actually operates the trigger, it's not a trigger activator. But I wouldn't bet on it. Especially not with the makeup of the MN courts.

Bryan, I'm asking for your opinion on the issue below.

What would be the status if we were to lower the "pull weight" of the trigger? Such as dropping it from 3 pounds to let's say ounces (2 to 10 ounces)? Lowering the pull weight can allow rapid fire, on semi-auto firearms, even though that was not the original intent. Many target shooters use extremely low pull weight for accuracy (mostly single shot firearms), but the principle could be adapted. It's still One Pull, One Round fired.

Thanks,
Jim

I'm sorry - late to this discussion. Was this directed at me to answer?

[bstrawse]

Then do something about it. Your avatar seems to imply an official position. If it is stuck down federally and us found illegal at the state level then you have failed.

Jeff, as he has explained elsewhere, is not a member of the Caucus's leadership. The only two folks authorized to speak on behalf of the Caucus in public are Rob Doar (Political Director) and I.

Bryan

[bstrawse]

Assuming he is part of a pro-gun lobbying group; I would think part of that job would include raising awareness of issues which I think he is doing right now.

As for the legality of bump stocks in Minnesota, They could easily be ruled illegal in MN by these Leftist judges we have. Would you really want to be a test case no matter how good the laws looked to your lawyer?

Note: Personally I dis-like bump stocks and would never own one, that said I think banning them is stupid. IMO It will turn out to be about as worth while as banning bayonet lugs turned out to be.

There are many who believe that MN's existing trigger activator law would cover bump stocks - it's yet to be tested in court.

We saw bump stock bans proposed last legislative session, I expect we'll see them again. We'll continue to oppose them.

We are discussing litigation options with other national groups - that's about the most I can say publicly right now.

[bstrawse]

Wow, I didn’t realize posting what I did would be so controversial!

I’ve worked with both GOCRA and the Gun Owners Caucus, but have taken a step back from the caucus for reasons I won’t get into here. I’m just a member like many others and am no longer part of the leadership team. My avatar is still the caucus logo simply because I haven’t gotten around to changing it. I suppose I should change it at some point to avoid confusion. My opinions are my own, and don’t reflect any organization I might be a member of, or that I’ve worked with in the past.

One thing for certain though is I’m not anti-gun. That accusation is beyond absurd!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel it is very controversial and not the position I would expect our pro gun groups to take on a public forum.

I trust you can in understand why it would seem to be coming from such a source?

I apologize for assuming it was more than a personal opinion. I do still vehemently disagree with your position.

The MN Gun Owners Caucus position on bump stocks is spelled out publicly here: https://www.gunowners.mn/statement_on_t ... gun_rights

Bryan

[bstrawse]

So what’s th strategy to fend off a bumpstock ruling in this state? Obviously it’s dependent on the feds losing their battle.

I still think it comes down to the trigger activator vs finger. If the finger is all that’s needed then I am a trigger activator and should be banned.

A ruling "in this state" would have to be about MN's existing trigger activator law. The federal cases over the bump stock ban are a whole different story.

No one has been arrested and charged with using a trigger activator in Minnesota, so let's keep that from happening.

Stopping a legislative bill to ban bump stocks will be handled through our regular process of stopping legislation. It starts with making sure folks are on our mailing list and getting our action alerts

Bryan

[Erud]

Super weird, bro.

Sorry, Deny Green Vikings reference. Some jokes bomb.

Sorry, not much of a football fan, I guess. I always did appreciate his work with the Sunset Music Band though...

[Holland&Holland]

The MN Gun Owners Caucus position on bump stocks is spelled out publicly here: https://www.gunowners.mn/statement_on_t ... gun_rights

Bryan

Good. Thank you Bryan