TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote: Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:17 pm I've seen many videos of soldiers in Iraq running full auto. Nobody can say full or semi is better; each has its own applications. If I stepped around a corner in Fallujah and there were 3 or 4 ISIS fighters standing right in front of me raising their weapons, I'd darn sure want to be on full auto. Another good example is this scene from the movie "Sicario." Of course, it's a movie, but it makes the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBJbqV3IROM

Everything has its place.

"On the internet, everybody is an expert."

Speaking solely from my personal experience, I was completely unable to accurately control my fire beyond a 3 round burst while firing my M16A1 on full auto. This is back when they actually had full auto, and I always thought that was the reason why the later M16 versions switched from an automatic setting to a "burst" setting.

If I am facing 3 to 4 bad guys, I'll need to fire 3 to 4 accurate, aimed, shots while switching from one target to another. I am going to go out on a limb and say that, for me, that will be easier to do quickly if I am on semi-auto mode, instead of also having to deal with muzzle rise before acquiring each of the next targets.

Maybe others are better able to fire accurately on automatic mode.

statements made with respect to accuracy or necessity of bumpstocks is of the same rationalization as saying we only need firearms for hunting, in my opinion. the owning of a bumpstock isn’t dependent on its usefulness, it’s a matter of constitutional rights. if that right is infringed by laws or orders, it is a shame that there is a mindset that appeasement is the right approach and that there is no challenge to such infringements by the executive branch.

Appeasing means you’ve already lost.

Consistency on any issue is hard for politicians and lobby industry individuals to achieve. What I wouldn’t give to hear these folks say sorry we screwed up. That at least would imply a lesson has been learned.

Interesting

https://reason.com/2020/04/01/another-t ... tedgar.com

Several different threads exist on this subject... but 5th Circuit over turns ban on bump stocks.

The court concluded that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), rushed the legislative process by approving a rule to define bump stocks as “machineguns,” in which the court ruled that the group did not have the authority from Congress to do so. 

“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of 'machinegun' outlined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” a statement from the court read. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharno ... n-n2618018

So are the courts going to stop the pistol braces?

carlson1 wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:52 pm So are the courts going to stop the pistol braces?

My guess is that both SBR's and silencers will be removed from the NFA... which will make the ATF's pistol brace rule moot.

Paladin wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 8:15 pm

carlson1 wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:52 pm So are the courts going to stop the pistol braces?

My guess is that both SBR's and silencers will be removed from the NFA... which will make the ATF's pistol brace rule moot.

My friend I pray that is exactly what they do. The Glock you had suppressed was really really a pleasure to shoot. I am considering one for my 9mm if I can ever climb out of the debt ditch.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/25/si ... ban-again/

6th circuit panel rejects bump stock ban again.