Bump Stock Ban

Final Action, November 2, 2017

The narrower Senate language was adopted in the final adopted version of the 2017 deficiency budget, essentially limiting the use of bump stocks to to people with a machine gun license.

SECTION 18. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.

SECTION 19. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the definition of “Assault weapon” the following definition:-

“Bump stock”, any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of the weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.

SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the definition of “Shotgun” the following definition:-

“Trigger crank”, any device to be attached to a weapon that repeatedly activates the trigger of the weapon through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion; provided, however, that “trigger crank” shall not include any weapon initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.

SECTION 21. Paragraph (o) of section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- Clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph shall not apply to bump stocks and trigger cranks.

SECTION 52. The executive office of public safety and security shall notify individuals licensed under sections 122, 129B, and 131 of chapter 140 of the General Laws of the changes to
laws made in sections 18 to 21, inclusive, of this act and the effective date of those changes. The executive office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks as defined in
sections 18 and 19 of this act, of the changes made under said sections 18 to 21, inclusive, and the effective date of those changes.

SECTION 53. Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of this act; provided, however, that no person shall purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank as defined in sections 18 and 19 of this act after the effective date of this act. [NOTE: The act will become effective when the Governor signs it, because it includes an emergency preamble.]

The Massachusetts legislature is taking swift action to ban the devices that the Las Vegas shooter used to slaughter innocent concert-goers with a hail of bullets. Bump stocks are used to convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns.

The House passed a version of a ban yesterday.  Today, the Senate passed a different version.

The House took a broad approach which, while stronger, might have had unintended consequences. The house defined a new crime for using any fire accelerating device — the language was added as Amendment 1 to a budget bill.

Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.

Some have expressed concern that this broad language could sweep in relatively benign and modest adjustments to firearms.

The Senate language bans specifically the device used in Las Vegas and another similar device, basically saying that they amount to machine guns, ownership of which is already restricted. It states in amendment 5 to the Senate version of the budget bill:

“The term machine gun shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.”

It adds two new definitions:

“Bump stock” any device for a semiautomatic firearm that increases the rate of fire achievable with such firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.

“Trigger Crank” any device to be attached to a semi-automatic firearm that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion, but does not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.

The alternative approaches were adopted in their respective branches with overwhelming majority roll call votes. The differing versions will be reconciled in a conference committee.

I was pleased to support the Senate ban and look forward to voting for final reconciled language which I expect will emerge swiftly. Hopefully, we will also soon see congressional action to put in place a national ban.

The official senate press release appears below.

BOSTON-Today the Massachusetts Senate voted to ban bump stock and trigger cranks and classify them under the same general law that governs machine guns.  The amendment, offered by Senator Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) establishes identical penalties, eighteen months to life in prison, for the use and possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks as current law holds for machine guns.

“Bump stocks and trigger cranks effectively change the nature of a semi-automatic weapon to make it into a machine gun.  There is no legitimate purpose for the use, sale, and possession of these devices or than to cause as much damage as possible,” said Senate President Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst).  “Taking this action today protects public safety, provides ample time for residents to comply, and establishes sufficient penalties for violations.”

“This amendment is a necessary and appropriate response to the dangers inherent in these deadly devices,” said Senator Cynthia Creem. “The horror of the mass shootings in Las Vegas is unfortunately just the latest incident which calls out for the adoption of more sensible gun laws both here and nationally.”

The Senate’s bipartisan action means that those who are not appropriately licensed to possess devices that are in effect approximating a machine gun will be in violation of our state’s comprehensive firearms laws,” said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).

The amendment also instructs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to notify licensed owners and manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks of the effective date of the changes.

Bump stocks use the recoil power of a weapon to effectively increase the rate of fire to make the gun a fully automatic assault weapon, which have been illegal in Massachusetts since 1994.  On Sunday October 1, fifty-eight people were murdered and hundreds injured by alleged killer Stephen Paddock at a Las Vegas country music festival.  Law enforcement found multiple bump stocks and trigger cranks in Paddock’s hotel room where the shooting originated.

The House of Representative passed a similar bump stock ban and the two versions will be reconciled before being sent to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

Response to Comments, Friday, October 13, 9PM

Thanks to all who have taken the time to comment including the many who were harshly critical — that’s OK and appreciated. We don’t mind a frank discussion on this website.

The only real question is which version of the ban will be implemented in final legislation. Both branches of the legislature voted overwhelmingly for a ban, although they took differing approaches.

The commentary in this thread gives good support to my conviction that the narrower and more specific Senate approach is preferable. I do believe, as many commenters stated, that we should know what we are doing with the legislation — at least we should know what devices we are affecting and the Senate language assures this.

I do take the points about grandfathering — what should happen to the outstanding bump stocks in Massachusetts? Open question under discussion.

To some of the broader points made: I fully understand the feeling of some law-abiding gun owners that they are being scapegoated with additional regulations that may not protect the public. I understand their resentment of “feel-good legislation” that only adds to the complexity of the legal rules that they must follow and places them at greater risk for inadvertent violation.

I also accept the point that the law-abiding gun owners are not the ones we need to worry about — they are well vetted. The people who kill people with guns on a daily basis are overwhelmingly criminals who could never lawfully acquire a weapon under the rules we have in place in Massachusetts.

Yet, I do support this legislation. I don’t think this legislation is a cure-all, but it is not useless. In the legislative process, there is always a balancing of considerations and an element of guess work. In this case, on the one hand, as many gun-owners have acknowledged, these devices have no particular legitimate value, so banning them is no great loss. On the other hand, there is a possibility that a rapid fire weapon could come into the control of the wrong person and be used to multiply harm in a crime. Even if we could be sure that all licensed gun owners would remain sane — and certainly, a healthy person can become depressed — a less healthy person in the same household could get access to the guns as happened in Sandy Hook. What are the odds that lives will be saved by the legislation? . . . hard to say, but I’m willing to make a judgment that the safety benefits of this legislation outweigh the harms.

To the 2A advocates, I’m sure we can agree that there is a line. They didn’t have machine guns in 1776. I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone complain about the machine gun ban. And this really is about banning something like machine guns. For most Americans, this is common sense — polling indicates it appears that among voters, healthy majorities of both Republicans and Democrats favor a ban. I understand the slippery slope concern, but every legislative decision could slide too far in the wrong direction in the future — we always have to draw lines.

Some expressed concern that the legislation is being rushed through hastily. Agreed. Both branches did move quickly to put a stake in the ground. But through the negotiation process that will now happen to reconcile the competing versions, I’m confident that we’ll end up with an adequately vetted product.

I do agree that we should be doing more on mental health issues, but no one should think this is a meaningful alternative to gun control. In fact, a strong effort to police all those who are mentally ill would be a great threat to personal liberty, much greater than that raised by deprivation of bumpstocks and machine guns. We will never have the ability to reach out into the population and readily identify people who are so dangerous that we need to intervene in their lives. We can make treatment available for those who want it, but we just can’t see many of the most dangerous people coming. There are millions of depressed people, but very few mass shooters. We’d probably have to have 20% of the population under mental health watch if we wanted to catch all the mass shooters and that would be terribly intrusive.

To those who believe that our existing gun laws simply need to be better enforced, please be assured that mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes are filling our urban jails — they are the most common mandatory sentence in some our Houses of Correction.

I’ve closed this thread to comment, but if you feel there is something that hasn’t been said, please feel free to reach out to me directly at william.brownsberger@masenate.gov.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

265 replies on “Bump Stock Ban”

  1. I typically sway far left. You could say I am a typical millennial AKA Bernie supporter. Yet, I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I understand why people would support the ban on bump stocks. The problem is that this law’s language is too vague (from what I have read) and, perhaps most notable is the simple fact that murderers and criminals don’t follow laws. This action on behalf of our politicians doesn’t seem well thought out…

  2. This is just another attempt to make it impossible for law abiding citizens from protecting themselves when a tyrannical government in the future decides to go against their citizens in order to do with what they want to accomplish in enslaving their citizens to conform to a hostile government if it were to become a hostile government that mimics other governments. For instance governments that mimic North Korea, China, Cuba, Russia, or even putting citizens in concentration camp with like we had done with Japanese Americans during World War 2. Or even with what Hitler did to the Jewish people. We know this sets a precedent for the future of our government. This also is very unconstitutional as it is a blatant infringement on the second amendment of the Constitution. This makes it a crime against law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal is going to obey laws? They’re criminals!!! They are not going to obey this law, because they do not respect laws. Any Republican or other politician who goes along with any laws infringeing on our Constitution should be impeached. That is why we have a Constitution to hold officials accountable to protecting that and our country. But in order to protect our country we must protect our Constitution. So, in closing any politician not following the Constitution should be impeached or not re-elected.

  3. The Senate’s version makes better sense of the issue. The Houses version is too vague and can be open to one’s own interpretation like AG Healy’s so called assault weapons ban. For example, After 19yrs she’s the only AG who knows how to read the laws. Please don’t allow this type of bias to happen again to law abiding citizens/voters. Thank you for understanding and asking for input.

  4. How’s the ban going on pressure cookers? Oh yay Massachusetts. Maybe you geniuses can write a law stopping “bad people” from doing “bad things”. Then we’ll all be safe and sound. The Senate version may make more sense but this law will provide no additional protection from someone out to do harm. I’m so glad you all know what’s best for us. Independent voter that does not usually vote Democrat or won’t vote for a Republican supporting this.

  5. Yes, I saw the Tarr proposal. It is much better focused and eliminates a lot of the vague and dangerous content. I do have a couple concerns:

    1. Defining these attachments, which can do nothing on their own, as machine guns means possession is punishable by Life Imprisonment. That may have very serious consequences for many otherwise good, honest people. There are likely thousands of law abiding people in the State who possess these. Hundreds of thousands across the US.

    2. This also creates the precedent of banning lawfully owned private property with no provision for compensation … a dangerous if not illegal step towards confiscation and the kind of stuff Linsky wants to pass.

    3. You and other Legislators must be fully aware that this or any similar ban will do nothing to stop a bad person from doing bad things. If they intend to commit murder or other violent crimes then breaking another law will do nothing to stop them. They will make their own device or buy out of State.

    All this knee-jerk legislation will do is appease anti-gunners and the media with a false sense of having done “something.” When in reality it more dangerously will create felons out of good people because of ONE sick person out of millions of law abiding gun owners.

    Again, I come back to 0-2 rifle related homicides per year in MA for decades. How is this a priority given the much more prevalent preventable deaths that occur from opioids, gang violence, road rage, domestic abuse, etc?

    1. Now you are making far to much sense. We can’t have that in our law making. They are all about knee jerk feel good stuff so they can say we did “something “. Im waiting for people to wake up and say enough is enough already with these “lawmakers” taking our freedom away.

  6. Here’s the problem: you can make anything you want illegal and that WONT stop CRIMINALS from breaking the law, murder, drugs, rape, etc won’t matter. All you and the government are doing is removing law-abiding citizen’s rights. Americans stand for Freedom. Stop taking our freedom away.

    Law-abiding citizens don’t need regulating, we need more police to protect us from criminals. Criminals don’t care if it’s illegal to possess an automatic weapon, they also don’t care if you ban guns. They will always possess weapons. Weapons come in lots of forms: knives, guns, plastic wrap, cars, big rig trucks, and airplanes.

    No government is going to ban air travel because of 9/11, no government is going to ban trucks/vans because of Nice. No government should ban guns because of a criminal attack.

    1. Agree 100%, how about enforcing current gun laws with the actual jail sentence instead of dismissing the charges…..as.seen all to often!

    2. You are absolutely correct. This ridiculous knee jerk legislation won’t do a darn thing to make anyone “safer”. It does however once again chip away from law abiding citizens liberty. Congrats to you liberty haters.

  7. You are very foolish if you think your stance will change the danger. I hope Will Brownsberger will be voted out soon for his ignorance. Myself I do not condone bump stocks. There is definitely a bigger agenda.

  8. You’re not living up to the oath you took to uphold the Constitution. And the 2nd Amendment is part of that oath. No one knows what happened in Las Vegas and the investigation is still ongoing. You just began to open Pandora’s Box. What’s next confiscation of law bidding citizens guns? And if you intend to pass these Bills why is it that law enforcement are being issued suppressors and not law bidding citizens? Isn’t that a little hypocritical? No one is happy about what happened in Las Vegas but you’re punishing all law bidding citizens in the United States because of a few. It’s like racial profiling except you’re doing it to law bidding gun owners. You can’t take an oath to the Constitution and then pick and choose what Amendments you want to follow. Remember the people who voted you in can vote you out just as easily and find someone who will honor their oath. Because once you start tearing apart the Constitution and it’s Amendments that’s when people need to ask themselves are we a democracy or a dictatorship? And is this the tyrannical government our Four Fathers were talking about? I Love America but our government has gone to crap with too many people putting money into people’s pockets for a vote their way. I know you all consider it a contribution but the American people know better. Stop what you know is wrong and stand up and say enough is enough. Honor your oath!!!!

    1. P.S. Your also just made law bidding citizens targets for all criminals because they unlike responsible gun owners don’t follow your laws. Because they don’t care that’s why they’re criminals!!!!!

  9. Senator;
    First, thank you for soliciting the comments on these proposed pieces of legislation.
    I cannot support the House bill. It was written by one of the most vociferously anti-gun representatives in the country. It was specifically written in such a vague manner as to allow our equally anti-gun Attorney General to interpret it in any way she saw fit. This is extremely dangerous.
    The Senate bill, while better, is far from perfect. What do we do with all the legal owners of slide fire stocks or trigger cranks. When they bought them, they were legal. This is a textbook version of an ex post facto bill.
    There needs to be some mechanism for dealing with this situation. While I don’t own either device and have no interest in them, I also do not begrudge someone else their right to own a legally allowable device. I was frankly surprised that the ATF, under the Obama administration approved these devices. My thought is that they allowed them hoping for a tragedy such as Las Vegas, which could be used to severely restrict firearms ownership while emotions run high, as now. After all- never let a good tragedy go to waste.

  10. To respond to your question, Will, I wish I knew more about how these things worked, While a lifetime shooter, I never heard of them. But I can see the House version is risky. The Senate version is more specific and better by far. As for words, I think you should add “and other devices with a similar effect”. Creative people will create other devices beyond bump stocks and trigger cranks. And how about outlawing large-capacity magazines. Without these, automatic weapons have much less affect.

    1. I find it amazing you are sp eager to ban something you never sven heard of. You do realize you are about to once again lose a bit more liberty. Pick pick pick and soon it will all be gone. Sad times for this once great nation

    2. That’s naive. Anyone with any kind of training can be just as deadly with a 10 round magazine as a 30 round magazine. Taping 2 magazines together only prevents a few seconds of non fire. Not enough to make any kind of difference.

      If you add “similar devices” then you open it up to misinterpretation like AG Healy. And you get someone who knows nothing except a semi-automatic rifle looks like an automatic rifle making rash and ignorant decisions only making the public angry and drive up the preban used market prices. She didn’t prevent any more AR sales, she made them more expensive and non taxable. Good job AG.

    3. Im blown away at the level of ignorance and how uninformed a self proclaimed ‘lifetime shooter’ could be.

      When will the days come where we have the leadership that will make decisions that will help fix the real issues and not pander and ultimately cave to the masses on topics of which they have no working knowledge of?

    4. Large capacity magazines are banned in many states and do nothing other than punish law abiding citizens. Do you really think someone who plans on using a large capacity magazine to commit a crime is going to think twice about because they are banned by law??? We have more than enough gun laws on the books already. Maybe if they enforced the gun laws we already have there would be less reason to come up with new ones……

  11. As a NRA Range Safety Officer, Benefactor Life NRA member, and Chairman of our local Republican Town Committee, I wholeheartedly support a ban on “bump Stocks” and Trigger “crank devices”, but those ONLY.
    Bruce Tarr is correct on this issue.

    Of course, this is like locking the barn after all the horses have been stolen.

    1. Problem is you let them ban these and next thing you know you put too much lube on your rails instead of having a licensed official do it and it increased your rate of fire. Big legal trouble. $$$
      Give them and inch and they will ban semi auto ar-15 in MA altogether…. Wait…. What?!?!??

  12. Poorly written legislation. Suggest legislature obtain expert assistance, someone who is familiar specific firearms / accessory terms that will have a specific legal meaning. Write something that will actually do what it is intended rather than be interpreted by the courts and the AG for some future political agenda. We have already seen how that works out…. Why the additional language? GUESS WHY! Just another intended loosely written law subject to future interpretation…

    This legislation will not have any impact other than to again erode (just a little at a time) a Constitutionally provided RIGHT away from the law abiding Citizen! Criminals do not follow Laws. That’s why they are called CRIMINALS…

  13. The Senate version may avoid getting the Commonwealth into expensive lawsuits; the House version will be found illegal and cost use large sums of tax dollars to defend.

  14. As a Armed Professional & a voting constituent of the Commonwealth I’m very disappointed with the haste of this Bill. We are all sickened by the actions of that monster in LV. This is a “knee-jerk” Bill, especially the original House Bill. How something with that vague & overreaching language could even be voted in is beyond me! While the Senate Bill has specific language, the question remains why the haste? These continued measures only effect the law abiding, since criminals disregard all laws, including murder! I urge you to do right by the constituency.. I will be voting accordingly.

  15. These are still vague. Why add jargon and verbiage that does nothing more then cause other issues.

    The FBI and ATF are still stating they do not know if the bump fire stock was used just that there were on some of the firearms found at the scene in the room. We continue to add and draft laws that do nothing to fix any issues on the topic, rather just make it look to the uneducated masses on firearms that the state is trying to do something when they do nothing.

    First, what is a trigger crank? You have people drafting laws that are so unfamiliar with the industry. The laws are still too vague. There are hundreds of normal changes a person might do to a firearm that could increase the rate of fire. Oil it, police the feed ramp, change the barrel, replace stock mass produced parts that wear easy with stronger more durable aftermarket parts. What if they don’t replace a stock part for performance rather the firearm breaks and the after market parts are superior in quality?

    It really is crushing to see opportunities to actually draft laws, make changes and add verbiage that would make real verifiable change and instead the people in the position to do so draft laws such as the ones we see before us. It is disheartening to say the least. Instead of reaching out, doing some homework or even just calling a town hall and reviewing the best options we jump without looking and it does nothing but hurt the law abiding citizens and nothing to make them safer.

    Also what about pre-existing stocks and firearms that already exist? Where is that bill/law and verbiage? Is the state going to compensate the owners for the cost of those items to remove/replace them? Are they grandfathered in? We have politicians that have no concern as to what the people want or what will actually bring about change that we really want and need. It is truly sad to see the direction the Commonwealth is headed as well as this nation.

  16. Sir,

    I respectfully disagree with any further infringement. We the people who obey the law only use firearms for lawful purposes.

    Will additional laws stop criminals who don’t observe law in the first place? Device bans punish the innocent with more restrictions and fewer rights while the public gains a false sense of security.

    A device which converts to class III should be regulated at the Federal Level. I agree with consulting the National Rifle Association on action and language. Broad language may unintentionally include parts which do not automate fire but would restrict some; people of a smaller stature, women and people with disabilities from participating in sport and self defense.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  17. The proposed legislation is typical of the knee-jerk, ineffective, ignorant response characteristically submitted by liberal progressive legislators before actual facts are established. No criminal will obey this law and these cynical legislators know this but are using the Las Vegas tragedy to promote their attack on our civil rights. This proposed legislation is targeting law-abiding firearm owners, only. Since you asked, below are my comments.
    1) Define: “rate of fire.” This phrase remains vague in the write-up.
    2) Suggest revising the language of the bill completely. For example, consider this: “Mechanical or electro-mechanical devices, not included as part of the original firearm manufacturer’s design, that facilitate trigger activation, other than a deliberate single pull to fire a single round using one’s finger (or artificial appendage) to activate the trigger are unlawful.”

  18. I personally could care less about bump stocks. But what I do care about is the broad range of other items such as match grade triggers or Tacon’s. There are several other common items found on ar style rifles that could also fall into this category. The MAJOR PROBLEM with this and every other gun law/ ban is that they do absolutely nothing to control illegal activities. The only people who are affected by these laws are the good law abiding citizens who are the only ones that follow these laws in the first place. Criminals will always have a way to obtain firearms/accessories that are banned by law and making new laws will have absolutely zero effect on that. The same goes for all supposed “common sense” laws. They are all being put in place for one reason, which is ultimately to completely disband the 2nd Amendment for law abiding citizens.

  19. This is an unbelievably horrible law that turns law-abiding citizens into felons overnight, without any prior discussion or public comment on proposed legislation. A piece of plastic will now be treated as a machine gun, and heavily regulated with felony charges.

    There are many thousands of lawful owners of bump fire stocks, and there is no way that all of them will be informed about this change. It is very likely that many of them will be caught “years later” with these devices and their lives will be ruined as they are prosecuted harshly and thrown in prison over a piece of plastic, which was 100% legal to own when they purchased it. For the owners that are notified, they will be forced to dispose of their legally purchased and owned possessions with zero compensation from the government, which is and has been ruled by the supreme court as being unconstitutional.

    If there was ever a law that needed close judicial review before being passed, it’s this one.

  20. Being a former combat engineer, I have used lots of machine guns and select fire assault rifles. As a responsible gun owner, I would never buy a bump stock, trigger crank, or similar device.
    It is a simulated select fire and a faux novelty.
    On the note of using this legislation to stop horrific mass shootings, I don’t think banning a cheap piece of plastic will stop criminals and terrorists from committing mass shootings or make anyone safer.
    I personally believe he could have killed more people if he used a magazine fed semi-automatic hunting rifle (larger caliber like 30 06). We are very lucky that he was a dumb-ass and planned this super Hollywood style mass shooting.
    I believe we need to evaluate how we approach mental health. There are lots of countries where lots of people have access to semi-automatic rifles (and sometimes pistols) where mass shootings don’t happen at a high frequency.
    I don’t believe that law abiding gun owners should be punished for the acts of terrorists. That being said, I have a strong feeling that there will be more mass shootings and pushes to restrict rights in exchange for an illusion of improved public safety. I see the constitution as a linchpin for protecting our constitutionally recognized rights. We have neo-Nazis and anti-fascists(communists) clashing in the streets. We have terrorists murdering for what I’m guess is fame. This is the time to be pro-freedom. Thank you

  21. I think that the amendment clarifies the requirements and appears to be to be properly limited. I question however, how the state has the authority to make illegal the possession of something by a person who already has one that was purchased legally at the time. Should the state have the responsibility to provide compensation and require the current legal owners turn their devices in to receive that compensation?

  22. As a former Veteran of the U.S. ARMY, Who was trained and certified to use the M60 and M249 both full auto assault weapons. I fully agree that there is no need for a civilian to have full auto. These and other weapons alike are most effective as use for suppressive fire, So your squad can move during battle. So I agree that the bump stock tool and trigger cranks, as well as any other device that will covet a weapon into FULL AUTO should not be allowed into a civilians hand. BUT AS FOR OTHER DEVICES THAT SHOULD STOP THERE. (As well as semi auto rifles of all kinds should not be banned ever.) Muzzle brakes and compensates and other such device should continue to be allowed. They provide a necessary assistance to weapons and the shooter to increase accuracy and follow up shots on hunting and defense.
    Thank you for your time and please make sure the right thing is done here. And as always up hold up the 2nd amendment. When all else fails it is the only thing protecting us all from true evil that is out there.

  23. This is an appropriate response to the potential threat of semi-automatic firearms being turned into automatic firearms in Massachusetts.

    How will current owners of these currently legal items be compensated for the loss of their property?
    Will currently possessed items be “grandfathered” in the law?
    How can their legally owned possessions be legally disposed of?
    What is the period of time for when this goes into effect?
    What happens when a executor of a will discovers that the deceases was in possession of an now illegal device?

  24. Given what I’ve read, I favor the House version. Furthermore, the semi-automatics and assault weapons that bump sticks can be used with should be banned.

    Instead of merely specifying prison time, restitution should also be required.


    James Hencke

    1. What you’re truly looking for is a ban on all semi-automatic long guns. Your knee jerk statement shows your true ignorance regarding firearms. People like you are dangerous to the 2A freedoms given to us by the Founding Fathers. I will continue to use my firearms for hunting and target shooting regardless of what ANYBODY says, period.

  25. MA already made the long guns these devices are designed to attach to illegal. If I buy a smoother bolt for my hunting rifle would that be considered a device that increases its rate of fire?
    This is kneejerk legislation. With a little practice, competition style rifles and ammo this guy could have killed way more people.
    How about passing a law that makes security levels higher in schools and large gatherings? We protect our money in banks better than we do our kids in schools. Please vote no. This is incrementalism masked by emotion.

  26. I AM A GUN OWNER I BELEIVE IN BANNING SO CALLED bump stocks. The average gun owner has no need of these devices. I do have a problem with the penalty part. Seems criminals don’t get such severe penalty. Remember guns don’t kill people. People kill people. There are thousands of gun laws on the books , enforce them.

  27. I agree with Senator Tarr. The devices should be regulated as are machine guns.
    Penalties proposed are to severe for a generally law abiding citizen who inadvertently violates the statute by mere possession or non violent use.

    Retired Police Lieut/Training Officer/Firearms Instructor (MPTC & NRA)

  28. I still have mixed feelings on bump fire stocks but, at least it’s o my a bump stock that is getting blamed instead of all guns I count that as a victory with some thought put in. I do not like the language being used almost as a scare tactic. Machine gun makes this seem much worse than it is. We need to be as clear as possible without others in the gun community being smartasses and saying how bump stock are technically semi auto.

  29. There is no correlation with stricter gun laws and public safety. But don’t take my word for it. You should travel to the south side of Chicago where some of the strictest gun laws in the nation exist and experience it there for yourself. Keep in mind that the authorities there that passed these laws travel with armed security guards.

  30. The House version is very BROAD and a kneejerk reaction. The Senate version appears to land close to target……targeting bump stocks under machine gun regulations. Penalty section for “possession /ownership”is longer than rapists, manslaughter and bank robbers….does that make sense??.

    I would note FYI that ATF has struggled with this issue for years without resolution.

  31. The house version is vague and too inclusive. A gun owner would be in fear of making ANY addition to a gun, as a DA could claim that it increases the ability to fire quickly.

    I support the Senate version, your version. The law should be specific to avoid confusion and regulatory creep.

  32. Just saying crazy people and criminals do not care about the existing laws or any other future laws that may come up. So don’t think that this action will stop gun violence, guns don’t kill people it’s the people behind the guns that kill people. There will alway be guns available even if you outlaw them completely. I do not have the answer to stop crime but laws won’t.

  33. I VEHEMENTLY oppose this bill because if our government is going to take away our right as lawful citizens to posess ANYTHING it must first produce 2 things to PROVE to us as citizens why we should relinquish our right and subjugate ourselves to potential tyranny.

    1. Who the shooterS actually were at the Las Vegas massacre as not one SHRED of real evidence has been released and tested to be 100% TRUE that S.P. was the ACTUAL shooter from the 32nd floor of M.B. Video and camera evidence of how he brought such firearms into a secure hotel and casino AND video evidence of him allegedly shooting at the crowd. Without that the US government has NO ground to stand on to take any right away from us as the evidence shown and the lack of actual physical evidence seems to prove a completely different story.

    Take a poll of Americans NO ONE BELIEVES THIS B.S. STORY!!!

    2. What good banning such a thing will actually do in the future as THOUSANDS of people already possess this “range toy”. There is NO WAY to 100% guarantee this item being legislatively removed from the US. And you definately can’t come and get them… that’s a bad plan (and I don’t even have one). “Banning” bumpstocks accomplishes NOTHING. Invest in mental health not in revoking our rights.

    Proof comes before any conversation about legislation!!!

    If you legislate our rights away without representation from ALL Massachusetts citizens then I will bring every gun owner I know to the state house and we will never ever stop perusing our rights until we have clear answers and law revocation.

  34. Thank you for this information. I was very concerned that the House language was too vague and potentially broad. The Senate version is much more clear and direct to accomplish the ban of bump stocks. I hope the Senate version will prevail, even though it is my opinion that the efforts to ban anything should be done in a deliberate and reasonable way, without RUSHING the process just to claim the mantle of being the first state to ban bump stocks.

  35. Why are we not banning sugar? Obesity kills more people than guns. What about trucks, more people killed and injured in Paris than Vegas. What is really needed is not more gun control but more control of mental health. Why don’t you people deal with the real problem? Jim Traniello – Independent

  36. You find it so easy to stomp all over the bill of rights. A bump stock doesn’t modify the action of a semi automatic and therefore doesn’t increase the rate of fire. You know that these laws are only for the law abiding gun owners because NO LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED A CRAZY GUY. You’re only moving closer and closer to repealing the second amendment. We know who you are and we know what you’re doing. You’re creating the slippery slope to a gun ban and confiscation.

  37. A ban on bump stocks is ludicrous. The same effect can be achieved using a dowel cut to an appropriate length, a string, your pants belt loop, or simply holding the firearm loosely. The problem here is, as usual, the person, not the tool. Stop infringing on my rights because of one madman. Madmen will always exist, and if they want to commit harm, they will, through ANY means they can.

  38. I am not for the passage of laws that do nothing to stop crime. Either of these bills have 2 goals: line the pockets of everyone in congress “we passed something, hooray career”, take the money from law abiding gun owners to do said pocket lining.

    The notion that banning things solves the problem has been proven folly. We all have very long knives in our kitchen, very fast cars in our driveway. Those have been proven effective in mass killings too. Are we writing laws to: only sharpen our knives at 80 degree angles, or ban rear spoilers because they make cars look scary and aggressive? No.

    The mass-stabbing that took place in the Taunton Galleria Mall 2 years ago is an example of what happens when someone is not given the proper mental health required to go about their daily business. The person was sent to a mental health clinic and was immediately discharged. The next day, he went on a killing spree. 100% avoidable incident.

    Fellow voters, the best thing to do is become educated on these topics for politicians prey on the uneducated by attempting to pass bills such as the proposal by the author.

  39. Hi,
    I don’t have a problem with a law banning bump stock and trigger cranks. In my opinion there is no good reason for this type of modification to ANY gun. I do not agree with any language that does not specifically state the type of modification and wants to do a blanket type of ban. This would hurt sport and competition shooters who want to make the trigger pull easier to use, hand grip or sighting better, or any other reasonable modification.
    The penalty is quite severe though, it does seems like a knee jerk reaction because of the tragedy in Vegas.

  40. Ban should state only devices that are designed specifically to mimic full auto fire shall be banned

  41. TThis is just proving that you are heading down a path to ban and confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You are trying to turn all law abiding citizens into criminals or guilt them into give up rights to bear arms. The Las Vegas shooting just proved your continued efforts to restrict gun ownership failed. This man was mentally unstable and had bad intentions that ended up killing people. He went through all the background checks and passed. Yor whole premise of banns and regulation failed you then and will continue to fail. Mentally unstable and bad intentioned people will always find a way to harm others.

  42. The House bill is inredibly broad. Does that inlcude lighter triggers? If so to what weight is it considered “increasing the rate of fire”? While I don’t think a ban on bumpstocks will accomplish anything (considering you could 3-D print them, and theres no way to round up the ones already out there), if you’re going to do it, just do the bumps specifically.

    One thing that is in both that needs to be changed is banning current possesion. If people already own them, and they aquired them legally, it isn’t fair to retroactively criminalize them.

    And on a seperate note, I thought they were already banned in MA under the AWB becasue they are technically “Adjustable stocks”? That’s what I was told when I looked into buying one about a year and a half ago.

  43. You should pass legislation that require criminals to obey the law! Get where I’m going here?

    ‘Shall not be infringed’ means exactly that.

  44. I would be fine with limiting anything that would be applied to mimic fully automatic firing rates. Anything further could be misinterpreted on modifications that wouldn’t be used to actually increase the rate of fire but might be construen that way.

  45. Ir would be helpful to know what specifically the House version would ban that the Senate version would not. I like the House version because it prohibits that which we fear– namely the modification of devices to increase the rate of discharge. The Senate version might be circumvented by calling the modification something else other than a bump stock.

    I applaud the courage of the state legislators who are promoting public safety by this legislation.

  46. I wholeheartedly disagree with this and all manner of knee-jerk, feel good/fix nothing infringements on the people’s rights here in Massachusetts.

Comments are closed.