Utah gun enthusiast granted temporary stay of bump stock ban

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • dogbreath Francis, UT
    March 22, 2019 5:19 p.m.

    So my question is this, what does "destroy" mean? If I have to cut it how many times and into how many pieces? Can I keep those pieces after I cut it? If I have to drive over it, how many times do I do so to render it useless? Can I keep it after doing so? I obviously can't burn it because that would be polluting the air. Do I smash it with a rock or a hammer? Does the hammer have to be approved for the use by the BATF? So many unanswered questions still remain.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:41 p.m.

    Chalk up one more loss for common sense.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:07 p.m.

    "A bump stock is an attachment for a firearm, not a firearm per se,"

    ... and therefor is not protected by the second admendment. If something is designed to expressly change the legal use of an item, that thing that modifies the intended use can be banned. Nitro in street legal cars. Shaved tires. Lots of things you can do to a car that take it beyond its legal spec to be more performant can and are often legally banned.

    Since a bump stoke is being claimed to not be a weapon itself, it has no protection.

  • NEAD SLC, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:04 p.m.

    RiDal is right. Bump stocks aren't the real problem, and we shouldn't be banning them.

    Instead, we should be banning semi-automatics.

  • American62 Anaheim, CA
    March 22, 2019 1:50 p.m.

    Why do these reporters feel the need to label people who own guns as "gun enthusiasts." I wear a seat belt all of the time, does that make me a seat belt enthusiast? Maybe some people just feel safer with a gun.

  • FargoUT Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:16 p.m.

    Don't get hung up on my use of "gun" instead of "arms". A bump stock is not an "arm" either. It's an attachment to an "arm". That's the problem with crazy gun nuts, they try to divert from the actual problem by turning the discussion into something irrelevant.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    I have a semi-auto rifle. I can fire it fast by squeezing the trigger as fast as I can. Just as fast as a bump stock.

    The problem in Las Vegas was not the Bump Stock. While it became a tool, the crazy bad guy could still have cracked off the same amount of shots in slightly more time and the same number of people would have been hurt or killed.

    The tragedy here is, the bad guy was a fault, not the bump stock.

    Now that having been said, I frankly wouldn't buy a bump stock. No need.

    I have fired weapons full auto, also called Rock and Roll. It is fun.

    A Bump Stock is like firing a weapon as Disco, not Rock and Roll. IT is still semi-auto mode.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:55 a.m.

    A commenter named "Paul8777" stated: "If there is ever a constitutional convention, let's hope that the 2nd Amendment is repealed and replaced with unambiguous language that makes sense in the 21st century".

    This gentleman is rightly concerned about the violent and monstrous acts committed in Las Vegas and Christchurch New Zealand by unhinged people.

    As a responsible gun owner, I agree that we should be concerned about mentally deranged and criminally violent people and the acts they perpetrate with various instruments including guns.

    Because there are so many unstable and unhinged people out there, I cannot think of another time in my life when responsibly owning a gun to protect my home and family is more important than it is now!

    If as Mr. "Paul8777" suggests, and our second amendment were to be repealed, who would protect him and the rest of us when only criminals possess guns? Clearly, the government and police cannot effectively protect citizens from evil people! If they could, the Las Vegas and Christchurch tragedies wouldn't have occurred. One prepared and armed citizen in those Mosques could have prevented the horrendous slaughter of innocent people!

  • rok Sandy, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:51 a.m.

    EPJ - the government owes no fair compensation for the loss of your toys when they are declared illegal.

  • Malihini Northern, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:46 a.m.

    This is NOT about ".. government overreach." or "..administration overreach." It is simply about trying to protect the public from madmen who have abused this right. You cannot change the argument over gun control by saying that the government is reducing the rights of people by limiting their access to weapons. The people, sorry to say but in the case it is the few, have abused their rights therefore those rights are now being taken away.

    When the founders of the constitution expressed their principles of freedom they did so based on the idea that people would act with virtue for the good of the whole (Federalist Papers). But when they don't these principles do not, and cannot apply. Thus, sorry to say but the lack of control of guns has lead to crazed individuals abusing these rights and now they are being taken away, and should be taken away in order to protect the people.

    The argument is public safety, not protection of the 2nd amendment at all costs.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 22, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    @Fargo

    "The 2nd Amendment protects people's rights to own guns."

    No, 2A protects people's rights to bear arms. It doesn't mention guns anywhere.

    All we need to do is get guns on the illegal side of the definition of arms (the same side you find bombs, missiles, and grenades on).

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:36 a.m.

    I hope that Clark Aposhian can help me keep my .50 caliber machine gun, howitzer and rocket propelled grenade launcher. They are essential for home and personal defense.

  • Paul8777 Brigham City, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:13 a.m.

    58 people killed by a white terrorist in Las Vegas and nearly a year and a half later we're still debating whether it's a good idea to ban the sale of bump stocks or not, much less whether we should expand background checks or take other measures to reduce gun violence. 42 people killed by a white terrorist in Christchurch and two days later New Zealand bans military style semi-automatic weapons. If there is ever a constitutional convention, let's hope that the 2nd Amendment is repealed and replaced with unambiguous language that makes sense in the 21st century.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:56 a.m.

    As an avid gun enthusiast, I hope the bump stocks will be permanently banned.

    That said, I applaud Mr. Aposian's concerns about government overreach. There are too many who would take away our second amendment rights arbitrarily if we stand there and let them do it. Let this go through the appeal process and we will let the courts make a good decision after a thorough review.

    Unlike New Zealand, in America it is right to own firearms. And all who own guns MUST be responsible in how they exercise that right! We must properly store our guns and ammunition and we should support legal efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people who are not responsible citizens based upon their background history and behaviors with respect to obeying and honoring our laws.

    The best thing we gun owners can do is strongly support responsible gun ownership and be good examples of how we exercise that right!

  • EPJ Skull Valley, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:44 a.m.

    The Legislative branch writes law; the Executive and Judicial branches don't.
    Aposhian is challenging unconstitutional over-reach.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:45 a.m.

    "Bump stocks" are pretty deep into the gray area of gun control.
    They "allow" semi-automatic rifles to be fired in a speed that simulates fully automatic. But the nasty truth is that any semi-automatic can be fired in a similar manner by simply learning how to hold on to it "loosely". There is some skill involved in learning how to do that, but "bump fire" was well known long before the "bump stock" just made it a little easier and more reproducible.
    I guess it can be argued that the "intent" of a bump-stock is to increase the firing rate.

    But the truth behind all this is that it is more useless legislation that would not change anything. A shooter can just pull the trigger as fast as he can move from one target to another. It is another case of trying to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens because of the actions of one deranged madman. As time passes, there will, statistically, be more and more incidents of madmen, until we simply have fewer and fewer rights. Already Canada and the UK are prosecuting people for "insensitive speech". George Orwell is weeping in his grave.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:40 a.m.

    The details of this case are too important to be ignored. And horribly misunderstood.

    FargoUT's comment is a prime example:
    "The 2nd Amendment protects people's rights to own guns. A bump stock is not a gun."

    That is the exact point. A machine gun, by statutory definition (18 USC 922) must be a firearm, and a firearm must include a frame or receiver to which barrel, stock, etc are attached. Then it must be able to fire multiple times with a single pull of the trigger.

    A bump stock is an attachment for a firearm, not a firearm per se, and cannot be a firearm under the legal definition for a machine gun. A technical issue, but if BATFE's arbitrary redefinition by rule (rather than a law with a new definition) is allowed to stand, then the law itself is meaningless.

    The BATF can declare a pigeon to be a cow, but it is not.

    BATF once declared by rule that a "shoe string" was a machine gun because if fastened in a certain way it could make a semi-auto firearm fire like a machine gun. But, they later admitted that was ridiculous and withdrew it.

    Ban bump stocks if you like, but creative wordsmithing ignoring existing law cannot be tolerated.

  • EPJ Skull Valley, UT
    March 22, 2019 6:41 a.m.

    So, when does the Federal Government buy-back program begin?

    It is only fair to compensate citizens who purchased bump stocks. The BATF determined them to be legal. Now they change the rules and those who purchased bump stocks must destroy them or turn them in without compensation? This sounds a lot like an infringement of the 4th Amendment right to be protected from illegal seizure.

    Yes, naysayers will rebut this by saying the the rule change IS legal. I get it. But what about fair compensation?

  • Misseleer71 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:52 a.m.

    Aposian argues his case well, no one individual can ban a firearm out of prejudice and must go through a throw legislative process by the federal agency's who have the authority to recognize and implement laws that meet requirement. I don't think the president intended his ban to be a power play but to once again to stop all the state from trying to enact and legislate anti gun laws. There can only be one gun law for all states and the Constitution is adamant about states not being allowed any authority to legislate laws contradicting our Bill of Rights in any state.

  • FargoUT Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2019 11:27 p.m.

    The 2nd Amendment protects people's rights to own guns. A bump stock is not a gun. This guy has no case, but it's his money, I guess he can spend it how he wants.