The Military Arms Channel has had enough of those who are OK with accommodating more gun control laws.

Reflecting the growing split within the pro-Second Amendment community, Mark Larue of LaRue Tactical has let it be known he won’t be sad to see bump fire stocks go the way of the dodo. Staunch gun rights supporters like the Military Arms Channel aren’t happy about it. To recap . . .

Bump fire stocks have been widely available for six or seven years, since the ATF made the [entirely proper] determination that they aren’t machine guns. The Bureau ruled that bump fire stocks merely aid the shooter in pulling the trigger faster — without altering the firearm in contravention of the National Firearms Act and previous ATF interpretations.

But with video and audio from Las Vegas showing a man with a bump fire stock murdering more than 50 people and injuring another 500, the once-obscure range toy — SlideFire’s tag line: “Prepare to change the way you play” — made a push to outlaw them inevitable.

Eventually, a puff of white smoke emerged from Fairfax when the NRA handed down its official position on bump fire stocks:

To be fair, the NRA powers that be were in a difficult position. The average American can’t or won’t distinguish between a bump fire stock and a proper fully-automatic machine gun. It’s difficult to defend something most people thought was already illegal, a device just used to increase the death toll of innocent Americans.

So the NRA assumed what many thought was the only politically tenable position: a preemptive call for bump fire stock regulation. But by trying to head federal legislation off at the pass, they alienated gun rights advocates and ended up with a PR mess on their hands.

Since the Clinton assault weapons ban, the pro-gun side has taken a largely absolutist stance, steadfastly opposing any move to limit gun rights in any way. After a quarter century of almost un-interrupted success, rolling back unconstitutional carry laws and expanding the number and demographics of gun owners, the bump fire issue has bifurcated the gun rights community.

Yesterday, ten Republicans signed on to the House version of a vaguely-worded bill making it a felony to possess any device that “increases the rate of fire” of a legal firearm. More than a few gun owners blame the NRA for providing them the political cover to do so.

In our wildly un-scientific Twitter poll, opinions of the NRA’s position were split. Some 45 percent of respondents are dead set against the NRA’s “the ATF should do its job” stance. The remaining 55 percent agree — to one extent or another — that the NRA didn’t have many good options.

Mark LaRue’s support for bump fire stock regulation — if not an outright ban — further highlights the split. Will more gun companies and gun right supporters signal their willingness to jettison bump fire, either through regulation or in a poorly crafted bill? Will guns rights absolutists be saying “I told you so” down the line, when a legislatively-emboldened ATF wields the ban hammer on other gun parts? Or the guns themselves?

Watch this space.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

58 COMMENTS

    • C R A P

      Literally saving up for for a PredatAR.

      People’s heads getting soft or something, wtf LaRue.?

      WE JUST NEED YOU TO MAKE NICE GUNS, IT AIN’T YOUR JOB TO ‘PROTECT’ ANYONE (CAUSE YOU CANT’).

  3. I was probably never going to patronize Mr. LaRue anyway, but I probably will bring this up, if somebody else doesn’t anytime I see a discussion of his products on any forum.

  4. The great fear the “gun community” has in educating the public is breathtaking. Those states that have machine gun shoots that make big money for the organizers and owners better not support a ban on bump stocks.

    Or you will be labeled a lying 2A hypocrite.

  7. “video and audio from Las Vegas showing a man with a bump fire stock murdering more than 50 people and injuring another 500 . . . made a push to outlaw them inevitable.”

    No. It made outlawing them inevitable. I think we both know that.

    • And when some person uses a stock semi-auto rifle to kill 65 people and injure 400 more, will a semi-automatic rifle ban be inevitable?

      And when some person uses a lever-action rifle in .30-30 Winchester or .44 Magnum to kill 60 people and injure 300 more, will a lever-action rifle ban be inevitable?

      Where does it end, Ralph?

      • 700,000 + REPORTED Abortions in 2010 IN THE U.S. alone [per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w%5D (if the dead kids ain’t “people”, then you’re not).

        Planned Parenthood can’t kill enough babies fast enough to please hell. If you’ve bought something with powdered protein in it, sports shakes / makeup / medicines / etc., ARE YOU SURE IT DIDN’T HAVE FETUS IN IT?

        DON’T TELL ME THE MF’S GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING KILLED OR ELSE THEY’D BAN SCISSORS AND SALINE.

        Ban the stupid Fs in office.

    • No, we don’t know that. There was only one way to find out. But no, let’s give up preemptively, so we look reasonable. Again.

      Why is something perfectly legal for years, sells by thousands and then suddenly becomes this huge problem when ONE asshole misuses it for crime?
      (Disclaimer: I don’t own and never intended to own bump fire stock. )

  9. I’ve said for a few days now that I feel this is a tempest in a teapot. Legislatively and regulatory wise I still think that’s true.

    However, I may have made a grave miscalculation in the overall statement. Perhaps it’s just me but it seems like the whole 2A community is basically tearing itself apart over this and that ain’t good. There is a lot of venom being spit and I’m not sure the wounds we’re opening up on each other are going to be the type that heal.

    Ironically enough, this stupid little piece of plastic may be the undoing of a lot of potential future advancement simply due to the fact that we, the gun community ourselves, can’t decide if this thing is worth defending and would seemingly rather remove each other’s eyes with a grapefruit spoon than fight the fights we should be fighting. This is, IMHO, going to generate A LOT of bad blood within the community and people who basically agree on 99.9% of things are going to potentially refuse to work together in the future because of it.

    • strych9,

      Here is the root problem: some people who call themselves firearms enthusiasts actively support laws which interfere with and/or ban transfers, sales, ownership, possession, and use of handguns, shotguns, rifles, and accessories like suppressors.

      In other words several “firearms enthusiasts” actively support severe government infringement of our right to keep and bear arms. That is pretty hard to reconcile.

      • I don’t disagree that the “FUDD mentality” is a problem. Lot’s of people say “I don’t have one so I don’t care” which is an interesting facet of human psychology but not really germane to this conversation.

        The issue I have is that I’d like to see people on both sides of the argument calm down and actually articulate their position from a reasoned and rational perspective. At that point I feel a lot of the “fuck bump stock” arguments will fall apart BUT we should carefully examine those that don’t fall apart and see what we can learn from them.

        We’re not doing that when we’re at each other’s throats, tossing out pejoratives calling each other names and saying “I’m done with X”. That’s what I mean by the community tearing itself apart.

        Personally I haven’t seen LaRue’s actual argument so I can’t and won’t comment on it but I would say that generally it falls into one of two categories: FUDD or reasoned. I’d have to see it to know which one it falls into and if it has any merit whatsoever.

        • Strych9,

          “I’d like to see people on both sides … articulate their position from a reasoned and rational perspective.”

          Reason and rational perspectives are irrelevant to something like half of the people in our world. That is why we cannot resolve our differences.

    • what it shows is how far from passage of good laws we are, and how hollow the claims of those claiming viability of HPA/are (mine included). We are supposed to believe the HPA would pass, and withstand scrutiny, even after a shooting, when they can’t even defend unimportant bump stocks?

      • “We are supposed to believe the HPA would pass, and withstand scrutiny, even after a shooting, when they can’t even defend unimportant bump stocks?” Exactly, and people who are supposedly 2A supporters that are willing to go along with the outlawing/confiscation of bump stocks are doing two things. They are unwittingly agreeing with the antis mentality that “a semi-auto pistol/rifle/shotgun has no use other than killing people as fast as you can pull the trigger” and second, they are helping to regulate and very possibly outlaw a myriad of firearm parts like a Glock ghost bar, AR15 2-stage trigger, adjustable gas block or even a Remington 700 with a Timney Trigger.

    • “Perhaps it’s just me but it seems like the whole 2A community is basically tearing itself apart over this and that ain’t good. ”

      BULL Fv<KING SH_T – Some of you are just coming around to the REALITY that you enjoy your RTKABA without even knowing why you have it, who might keep you from it, and what you REALLY might have to do to defend it.

      Yeah, we can get a bunch more shitasss infringement out of D.C. (from all of our ahole neighbors who needed a job). We can see how those MFs are not supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic. AND we can fv<king have at. That's fine.

      If that sounds inflammatory, you haven't been paying attention.

  11. Tim is right, Mark is left, uhm I mean wrong. LaRue, good luck selling more rifles on your 2 year waiting list, which will soon be empty waiting list.

  12. Looks like American Defense is getting my business from now on. Would be quite a stunt if they offered to trade their equivalent mount of customers sending them their LaRues.

  13. In regards to the 2nd Amendment and the NRA …

    “I have been told so and I understand that I am not the most eloquent person in the world, and I have rubbed a few folks the wrong way. I have failed to properly espouse my stance and some have misunderstood what I tried to convey. So let me clearly state my beliefs in simple words so there is no misunderstanding.

    I am staunchly Pro 2nd Amendment, I am staunchly Pro Bumpfire stocks and I am staunchly against any moves to limit Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period. I stand firmly with my fellow Americans, fellow shooters, gun collectors, hunters, home defenders, et al, against any regulations on the 2nd Amendment. Period. My life is fully committed to this, and the great country which has allowed me, and you, to prosper.

    I also believe we must work inside and through the NRA to safeguard our freedoms and liberty. We must work to reform the NRA, so that it fully reflects the beliefs of its members. We must give no ground to those who would strip our liberty and freedom from us. I am fully committed to this fight. We fight not just for ourselves, but for our children, grandchildren, and generations of Americans to come. We must be united together in this fight. There can be no step backwards, only forward.

    Mark LaRue
    LaRue Tactical”

  14. It makes no sense for a company like LaRue to even open its mouth on this. What could they possibly gain, regardless where they stand? Express a controversial opinion and risk alienating those who disagree.

    The mind boggles.

    • What boggles my mind: why on God’s green Earth are the NRA and NSSF siding with Democrats and civilian disarmament proponents without getting something in return!!!!!!!

      I can almost understand the NRA and NSSF saying internally, “Bump-fire stocks and machine guns are bad so we will support bans.” What infuriates me is that the NRA and NSSF failed to say, “So, since we don’t care about bump stocks and machine guns and Democrats do, let’s make them repeal NFA 1934 as it applies to short barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors — and/or repeal the Hugh’s Amendment of 1986.”

      • I think it is a calculated political move, whether it will be the right one or not I can’t say for sure yet. I don’t know Trump’s absolute position on this but he has indicated he is open to a ban. My guess is that now that the NRA and NSSF have gotten cozy with Trump they don’t want to stray too far from that warmth.

        • Trump doesn’t like guns, wants to institute stop and frisk and has shown the want to infringe on the second amendment. Trump doesn’t know what human rights are, he just knows numbers.

          Trump’s son appears to be one of those “sportsmen” who likes to go on expensive hunting trips. I don’t see him doing anything to help the situation. Trump’s daughter would support repealing of the second amendment, she asked her dad to illegally bomb another government, she is no friend of the rule of law.

          Don’t depend on New Yorkers to protect your human rights.

  15. A bump-fire stock is not a firearm. Strangely, doesn’t that mean that it does not have any constitutional protections?

    • If we go with that line of reasoning, then laws which ban traditional stocks or barrels have no protection under the Second Amendment, either. It should be obvious that we cannot have firearms if we cannot manufacture, purchase, transfer, sell, possess, and use barrels.

      If the Second Amendment does not protect all arms, including their components, accessories, and accoutrements, then it protects nothing and is meaningless.

      • Imagine yourself presenting an argument to the Supreme Court.

        It’s pretty easy to argue that traditional stocks, barrels and other gun parts are necessary for proper function and accuracy in use in self-defense or defense against tyranny. To ban them would be a 2A infringement, just as banning printing presses would be a 1A infringement.

        Much more difficult, in my mind, would be to argue the utility of a bump fire stock for the same purpose. But I won’t fault you for trying.

        • ARMS (guns) are for WAGING WAR against a government THAT YOU (YES YOU) FIND NO LONGER SUPPORTS YOU IN YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, if such government won’t pack up its sh_t and go to the house, when you ask nicely. [see paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence].

          You need parity with your government if not ‘overmatching’ capabilities in order to get that done. (Which may not likely be even possible, but it better be impossible due to your parameters, not theirs).

          Any limitation by your sh_t-ass government to prevent you from such, can only be viewed as a usurpation of authority and tyranny, with the strict expectation (regardless of stated cause) that they will then OPPRESS YOU.

          That is how such things have played out in human history so far.

          IF YOU LIKE YOUR RANGE TOY, YOU CAN KILL ALL OF YOUR DISAGREEING NEIGHBORS, AND KEEP YOUR RANGE TOY.

        • Imagine yourself overrunning the Supreme Court 1 1st St Ne, Washington, DC 20543, with a few heavily armed friends.

          As a joke, and because you have the stoney grit, several of you are sporting BANNED bump-stocks. Because your Legislative Branch, and failing SCOTUS tried to protect you from them, and it made you an outlaw.

  16. “a device just used to increase the death toll of innocent Americans.”
    This is the problem. I am trying to make the argument time and time again that the bumb stock DID NOT increase the death toll. With his time available, her could have done the same damage with a stock semi auto. He could have done the same damage with a bolt action. Guns are dangerous, but not to the degree we can’t be trusted with them. Hundreds of millions of guns hurt no one.

    But here we are, 2nd Amendment people arguing against me. Then my friends point and say I am unreasonable… smh

    • The attacker could have easily killed/injured just as many people doing nothing more than dropping several glass jars of gasoline onto the crowd (with lit cannon fuses attached to the outside of the jars for ignition).

      Alternatively, the attacker could have launched a few hundred arrows with broadheads out of a simple air cannon and killed/injured just as many.

      The possibilities are virtually endless, which is why trying to ban tools of mass murder is a fool’s errand.

  18. Yesterday, ten Republicans signed on to the House version of a vaguely-worded bill making it a felony to possess any device that “increases the rate of fire” of a legal firearm.

    So that could include any aftermarket trigger that lightens the trigger pull. It could be interpreted that way by the anti-gun crowd making anyone with a Geissele or other trigger a felon.

    Not good from my view.

  19. “But with video and audio from Las Vegas showing a man with a bump fire stock murdering more than 50 people and injuring another 500…”

    Ummmm…what’s this video and audio you speak of?

    Last I checked there was no video of any person firing anything. And the gunshots could easily be from true full auto. We’ve just been told that the ALLEGED gunman ALLEGEDLY used bump-fire stocks…

    Actual video and audio evidence actually contradicts the lone shooter storyline…

    Need to change the article here as this is just plain not factual.

  21. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. Now it is “bump-fire” stocks…
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  22. What is the rest of the context of the conversation on arfcom? It looks to me like he was just playing devil’s advocate from the zero context that we have.

  23. No. Both the 9th/10th amendments and (ironically given its current form) Commerce Clause mean the feds can’t just “ban things because.” A bump stock is no more or less protected than pottery in a fair legal environment.

    • Fair legal environment? Find one. Anywhere.

      But maybe I’m just being cynical because I’m a (retired) lawyer.

  24. Where is the evidence of this? A link to the post or something. This isn’t reporting but slander.

    Disclaimer: I do not own any LaRue products, nor am I affiliated with them.

  25. According to some “gun people” you don’t have the human right to own: rubber bands, wood, nails, pants, etc. Because it’s not written on the Constitution, therefore the government didn’t give you that human right. Since you happen to be born in the US, you don’t get to have any human rights unless it’s written in the Bill of Rights, you must get a permission slip or work for the government to get privileges.

  26. Here’s an easy opinion to wrap your head around.

    I don’t need a bump-fire stock. But I need you less.

    I assume that you’re saying it with me.

    Is the bump-fire issue a “sticking point” for me? NO, because this ain’t a sticking game.

  29. “The remaining 55 percent agree — to one extent or another — that the NRA didn’t have many good options.”

    That’s a disappointing takeaway from this piece.

    The NRA had one very good option. It’s called being what the anti-gun crowd calls a powerful lobby that can threaten the tenure of Congressscum who don’t toe the 2nd Amendment line. The NRA SHOULD be threatening them.

    Who cares if that leaves the NRA as a bad taste in the mouth of people who don’t understand the issue in the first place?

    AIPAC gets away with this crap for the benefit of Israel every year. They OWN half the Senators in Washington.

    The NRA might as well use its clout or sooner or later there won’t be any 2nd Amendment or guns and the NRA won’t HAVE ANY clout.

  30. Man, LaRue has some good kit…
    I have 3 of their rear sights for M4 rifles
    and some other stuff….It’s going to hurt not buying from them anymore..and I already ended my NRA membership..
    I truly hope more of my favorite items and associations don’t have to be terminated….
    THERE IS NO COMPROMISING THE 2ND AMENDMENT…..
    “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” HAS NO OTHER DEFINITION…
    SCOTUS NEEDS TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT…

  31. What is it with these companies that are going out of their way to slit their own list as if it were the Clinton and Obama years? Even entities like SAASMI which really shouldn’t be saying anything about anything are throwing their hat into the ring and shooting themselves in the foot by calling for a ban.

    God, if they’re this afraid now, what would have happened under Hillary?

Comments are closed.