Here's What Happened When Two Democrat States Banned Bump Stocks

Submitted by Matt P. by The Political Insider,

Most people didn't know what a "bump stock" was before the massacre in Las Vegas last year, where a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival.

It was revealed that the shooter had used bump stocks to make his semi-automatic weapons fire at a rate more resembling automatic fire. Automatic weapons have been banned in America since 1934, and many have called for a ban on bump stocks as a result.

There was some discussion of doing so at a federal level, but like every other potential gun control measure, it ended up going nowhere. Instead, a few States have decided to ban them on their own. New Jersey and Massachusetts are among them, banning bump stock purchases, and requiring all outstanding bump stocks to be turned in. The gun accessory isn't all too common, and there are only 8,500 bump stocks in Massachusetts, and 5,600 in New Jersey.

The problem for regulators is that there isn't a record of who owns them, so they've had to rely on citizens voluntarily turning in their bump stocks to comply with the law.

Massachusetts and New Jersey are both heavily liberal States, and yet virtually nobody turned in their bump stocks. Only three people did in Massachusetts, while a total of zero did in New Jersey.

Bump stock bans are currently awaiting governor's signatures in Hawaii and Connecticut, and Delaware and Rhode Island are set to ban them soon too. A gun control proponent may argue that despite the impossibility of confiscating all the current bump stocks in circulation, a ban on sales prevents the supply from growing.

Regardless, the real lesson here is that any gun confiscation schemes the Left may cook up would never be obeyed if attempted. If gun owners in far-left States won't even turn in a gun accessory, what could of gun control measure would owners comply with?

Probably none.

Comments

El Vaquero johngaltfla Thu, 05/24/2018 - 19:30 Permalink

NY state passed an "assault weapon" registration law.  It got around 4.5% compliance.  CT did the same.  IIRC, it got 6% or 7% compliance.  I sure as fuck wouldn't register mine.  Now there is a new criminal class in those states that outnumbers all of their police by a big margin and is also more heavily armed.  Not a good way to maintain one's authority.

In reply to by johngaltfla

Cognitive Dissonance LargeHardonCollider Thu, 05/24/2018 - 19:42 Permalink

Because ultimately many of them simply cannot conceive of the (very real) possibility the government might actually turn on them. Thus why the need for guns for personal protection?

If you believe in a higher human authority other than yourself, to own a gun is almost a repudiation of that higher authority. If your gonna live in your parents house, you must follow your parents orders.

No need to dig up that ugly can of worms when daddy is here to protect you.

I know this sounds childishly simplistic and no adult thinks this way. But there are many that do.

In reply to by LargeHardonCollider

Pure Evil Cognitive Dissonance Thu, 05/24/2018 - 20:18 Permalink

Automatic weapons have not been banned in the US as this author states.

All you need is money and a Class III license to own one.

There are plenty of gun shows across the United states where owners of automatic weapons get together to have an old fashioned gun shoot using those same automatic weapons.

I've been to plenty of gun stores where said owners proudly displayed their automatic weapons. Of course they all had Class III firearms license.

In fact you can rent military grade firearms from many shooting ranges just for the experience.

Here's a few videos of the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot Event in Kentucky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwW4PEeuL_Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7WrUEpJAFQ

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

dchang0 Pure Evil Thu, 05/24/2018 - 22:00 Permalink

While you are technically correct, the effect is nearly the same as a ban, as the number of owners of automatic weapons is so small as to be negligible.

It's like how in LA County, the authorities can claim that CCWs are technically legal, but with only a few thousand CCW permits issued for a county with nearly 10 million people, that is effectively a ban on concealed carry, especially given that the few CCW holders are largely politically-connected to the Democrat gov't.

In reply to by Pure Evil

stacking12321 Cognitive Dissonance Thu, 05/24/2018 - 20:21 Permalink

i stopped reading at the first line:

Most people didn't know what a "bump stock" was before the massacre in Las Vegas last year, where a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival.

it was multiple gunmen, none of whom were named paddock - he was just a patsy, and would not have been able to produce the prodigious hail of bullets by himself as the FBI claims.

 

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

slightlyskeptical Cognitive Dissonance Thu, 05/24/2018 - 20:23 Permalink

"Because ultimately many of them simply cannot conceive of the (very real) possibility the government might actually turn on them. Thus why the need for guns for personal protection?"

I think almost all Americans recognize this need. Most Americans though, want to keep guns out of the hands of folks that will be irresponsible with them, and so do the majority of gun owners. It is the NRA and their hardcore supporters who lobby to limit the ability to do this. You are under attack because of this.  

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

El Vaquero slightlyskeptical Thu, 05/24/2018 - 20:33 Permalink

We don't care if we're under attack.  At the end of the day, we're the ones with the guns.  A war on guns will go worse than a war on drugs.  Besides, I have yet to se a proposal to "keep guns out of the hands of folks that will be irresponsible with them" that will work and that won't violate simple things like due process.  

 

But we're not really under attack because of that.  We're under attack because authoritarian shitbags know that we'll put their heads on pikes if they really try to clamp down, and they're going to use whatever narrative they can.

In reply to by slightlyskeptical

TBT or not TBT waspwench Thu, 05/24/2018 - 20:57 Permalink

Uh, the NRA isn’t the only organization in this space.   They’re not even 5% of gun owners.   Personally I never joined because they’re weak tea as to 2A, compared to the original purpose of recognizing the natural right.    Anyway, a much bigger force than the NRA is the unorganized militia who own weapons.    They vote, and have a bigger electoral effect than mere ads and campaign cash meant to cause votes to happen.  

In reply to by waspwench

robobbob waspwench Thu, 05/24/2018 - 21:40 Permalink

which is why I'm a bit concerned that daddy bush's hatchet man Mr North has just become the NRA's new leader.

yeah, an accolade of a globalist patrician is now the guardian of the country's premier gun rights group at the same time the left is making a determined covert move to destroy the organization. anyone pick up the msm murmurs that NRA accepts foreign, and even russian(gasp) tainted donations that they use to influence elections?

like lambs to the slaughterhouse

do none of these people remember it was "conservative" bush sr who was the first to BAN those evil "assault" rifles before it was overturned? and now "super-secret agent man" is guarding the henhouse.
 

In reply to by waspwench

FEDbuster Pure Evil Thu, 05/24/2018 - 21:42 Permalink

At the risk of educating libtards, you don't need a bump stock to bump fire a rifle.  The belt loop on your pants works just as well.  If you want accurate, increased semi auto fire rate, get a binary trigger for your AR.  Basically they provide a two shot burst, strung together they simulate full auto. 

As for gun confiscation, "molon labe motherfuckers!"

How to bumpfire without a bumpfire stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9fD_BX-afo

In reply to by Pure Evil