This next story should absolutely serve as a wakeup call for the gun grabbers, especially those who are going after new regulations of bump stock devices (and even more than just that).
The Chicago Tribune reports that a proposed ban on bump stocks, the gun accessory that few anti-gun Americans knew existed until the media made it their next target in the wake of Las Vegas mass shooting at the beginning of the month, has failed in, of all places, the Illinois House, thanks to a consensus from members of both parties that the legislation was overly broad:
But opponents, including Rep. Jerry Costello, a Democrat from Downstate Smithton, called the bill too far-reaching because it would ban any modification that accelerates the rate of fire — such as changing a spring or replacing a trigger.
“I don’t view this as a bump stock ban, I view this as a ban on 40 to 50 percent of the guns in the state,” Costello said. His district includes the World Shooting Recreational Complex in Sparta.
Costello said the legislation would turn people who modify firearms to compete in shooting competitions into lawbreakers. Most lawmakers agreed with his side of the argument, rejecting the proposal by a 48-54 vote.
Unfortunately, it’s too early to pop the champagne corks, because another bump-stock ban is in the pipeline — thanks to a Republican:
Opponents of Moylan’s bill offered an alternative backed by Rep. Barbara Wheeler, R-Crystal Lake. It would ban only bump stocks, not other devices. That bill has the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association.
“The language in the actual bill matters,” said Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield. “If you want to address the issue, let’s address the issue in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner.”
Following the vote, Moylan said he was willing to consider narrowing his bill to win more support, but he said the bill pushed by Republicans did not go far enough.
“We’re not going to dilute it so it’s not effective,” he said.
In addition to leftists’ natural desire to restrict the exercise of Americans’ Second Amendment rights however and whenever they can, this bump stock craze is about politicians wanting to look like they’re doing something meaningful, not actually protecting anybody.
First, for those who need a refresher, Rebekah Curtis explains at the Federalist that bump stocks basically help increase a gun’s rate of fire (though still not making it truly automatic) while maintaining a (still-diminished) degree of accuracy. Because — are you sitting down? — unloading more bullets in a shorter period of time is fun.
Second, Tom Knighton explains at Bearing Arms that banning bump stocks would be both futile (the same basic effect can also be achieved with a rubber band) and pointless:
Even if they could manage to end bump-fire completely–and that’s a ridiculously lost cause–they won’t end quick shooting. Frankly, I’d rather a shooter wanting to kill me try to use bump-fire than really fast, aimed fire like Haley or Miculek use.
After all, there aren’t many videos about bump-fire that shows someone actually hitting their target, and there’s a reason for that. Bump-fire is notoriously inaccurate, much like automatic fire in the hands of most people. It’s almost impossible to use effectively against people unless you have a large mass of folks you can aim at, but once people start to disperse, that effectiveness ends.
But hey, when have Democrats ever let little things like “will it work” stop them?