Bumpstock Ban

David Codrea's article on "Trump's Bumpstock Ban":

Trump's Pending Bumpstock Ban - Firearms News: "In order to eliminate -- terminate -- bump stocks, we have to go through procedure. We are now at the final stages of that procedure," President Donald Trump declared in an Oct. 1 Rose Garden press conference marking the anniversary of the Las Vegas shootings. "We are knocking out bump stocks. I’ve told the NRA -- bump stocks are gone.

Read the whole thing, of course.  Nobody is more erudite nor so well reasoned as Codrea.

My opinion counts for very little, and that's because I'm a "FUDD" when it comes to Bumpstocks.

Oh, what's a Fudd?   That's a pejorative term aimed at shooters who only care about hunting.  Deer, Elk, Quail, Lions ... or Skeet, Trap, etc.  it doesn't matter; as long as the Feds don't mess with their gun sport, they could care less about any other 2nd Amendment issues.   (It's actually defined in the Urban Dictionary.)

It surprised me to learn that I was a FUDD, but actually I have no use for a Bump Stock (spelling varies).  While I've written about the issue before, I find I can't get all that worked up about it.  I mean, who needs a Bump Stock?

On the other hand, who needs an M15?   (semi-automatic version of the M16 Assault Rifle ... which unlike the M16 is NOT capable of "Selective fire").   I don't own an M15, because I have no use for it.

The point is, most people think there is no difference between the M15 (semi-auto only) and the M15 (capable of full auto fire), and so the CIVILIAN M15 is denigrated almost as vigorously as the M15.

The difference is, the people who are pushing to ban the M15 don't know the difference.
And they don't care.  They just want it banned, because it looks dangerous.

All guns are dangerous; that's the whole point.

But the "Bumpstock" does not meet the criteria of the ATF, so it's still legal.  And when the feds get around to it, they will ban the ATTACHMENT because they don't like it, even though it's currently legal.

There are various bloggers describing the future consequences of banning "attachments" and "modifications".  One of the most popular is:

Suppose you lighten the trigger pull on your firearm.  Is that to become an illegal alteration?

Would the addition of a trigger shoe (to improve the ability to touch of an accurate shot, as I did when I was 16 and competing in .22 caliber "Gallery Rifle" matches) become a banned attachment?

When the ATF becomes involved in nuances of equipment to otherwise legal firearms, it may be that they are over-reaching their mandate.

Or I may be wrong; perhaps that is precisely their "mandate".

The trouble is, we don't know what that mandate is, except that we can expect it to be "floating" ... it means whatever they say it means, and will probably be enforced by Rule Of Law.

And there's very damn little we can do about it.

I'm just in ignorant old man, but there's a difference between LAW and REGULATION ... or is there?

Can a "Regulatory Agency" put you in jail because your gear doesn't violate either law or regulation, but they just don't like it?   Can you become a criminal even though you haven't committed a criminal act?