Charles L. Cotton wrote:spectre wrote:It’s ok guys, we’ll get national reciprocity and suppressors removed from the NFA any day now.
Obviously you fell into a Rip Van Winkle deep sleep, so let me advise you of a couple of events that changed the political landscape. On Oct. 1st, 58 people were murdered and 851 were injured at a Las Vegas outdoor concert when a nutjob opened up with AR-15s using bump-stocks. On Feb. 14th, another nutjob shot up a high school killing 17 students and teachers and wounding 17 more. The media and the Democrat Party have been spewing lies ever sense. I'm sure if you had known about these events and the subsequent media frenzy, you would better understand why it's going to take longer to pass pro-gun legislation in Washington.
This is exactly why I've been saying all along that bump stocks are a distraction. Decriminalizing and / or normalizing something that affects a LOT more gun owners than bump stocks should be the proper priority. I don't know for certain how many bump stocks have been sold since they were invented a few years ago, but I'm willing to bet that suppressors have sold far more units than bump stocks; and people with concealed carry licenses WAY outnumber the total number of suppressor or bump stock owners. The problem with bump stocks is that they are the tail wagging the dog when it comes to gun rights priorities ...... and they are a LOT harder to defend to the non-gun-owning public ..... particularly that part of the public that is actively advocating for banning them.
CCW Reciprocity facilitates safe interstate travel and is a desirable national goal which can be argued on its own merits. Deregulation of suppressors serves a hearing health-related purpose and is a desirable national goal which can be argued on its own merits. Bump stocks exist so that gun owners can more easily make their "fully semi-automatic" weapon fire like a machine gun while circumventing existing laws. I agree that they should not be regulated, given the fact that one can bump fire a semiautomatic without a bump stock. That doesn't change the fact that bump stocks exist for the sole purpose of making it easier for a semiautomatic to be fired at a fully automatic rate, thereby circumventing NFA restrictions on the purchase of machine guns. There is a portion of even the gun-owning world that has no problem with private ownership of semiautos, but has serious misgivings about the private ownership of fully automatic weapons. Given the national hysteria over semiautomatic weapons, does anyone seriously think that burning up political capital, at this moment, to defend bump stocks is going to do anything except suck the oxygen out of reciprocity or suppressor bills?
As Charles says, it's going to be almost impossible to pass any pro-gun legislation at all in the current climate; but things will calm down eventually (we hope), and there will be an opportunity to get some things done. When that happens, CCW reciprocity and the HPA should have the priority. I seriously doubt that bump-stocks will ever get a fair hearing.