Why A Ban On Bump-Fire Stocks Can’t Be Enforced


As you’ve probably heard by now, the latest bandwagon that anit-gunners have jumped on is the idea of banning bump-fire stocks. Anti-gunners (as always) think that banning a firearm or an accessory is going to make a difference as if the firearm or accessory can act of its own free will do harm other people. Banning bump-fire stocks won’t do anything to reduce gun violence.

Now, aside from the irrational thinking behind these attempts at banning bump-fire stocks, there is a practical reason why banning the sale of bump-fire stocks won’t change anything: 3D printing. Philip Wegmann writes,

Bump fire stocks are made from relatively cheap polymers that can be 3-D printed. Hobbyists have posted videos of their homemade stocks in action, at least one manufacturer has actually built 3-D-printed prototypes, and the digital blueprints are already floating around online.

Wegmann also writes,


Blueprints are currently hosted on popular open source sites such as FOSSCAD Exchange and GitHub, and a Reddit forum of basement tinkerers and amateur gunsmiths is standing by to advise.

In other words, people who have access to a 3D printer and have a little ingenuity and persistence can build their own bump-fire stocks now. Frankly, probably the only reason that this hasn’t already happened on a large scale is that it’s easy enough to buy a commercially manufactured bump-fire stock right now without having to go through the hassle of 3d printing the accessory. And it’s cheaper, too. Wedmann says,

While commercially manufactured stocks cost as little as $99, Andrew Baker, founder of the 3-D-printing firm Veloforge, estimates making the GitHub design out of nylon would cost around $2,000 and take 52 hours to print. “Materials for the parts would be very cheap,” Baker says, “but the cost is in the time spent using the printer and the printers themselves.”

So, while it’s possible to 3D print that accessory right now, it’s not convenient. Regardless, just the fact that bump-fire stocks can be made at home right now makes a ban on bump-fire stocks simply unenforceable.



  1. I don’t understand why normal folks would want a bump-stock. I learned many years ago, practice-firing a Thompson and BAR off my tin-can’s fantail, anything after 2 or 3 rounds was shooting at air/wake.

    • Yup, can’t aim well after about 3 rounds, that is why the M4 has a 3 round burst, it is more accurate. Leave it to a military guy with common sense like you to make a good point. Then again, why let a psycho terrorist easily wander into a gun/sporting goods store to get a bump stock and let him spray into a group of innocent people? If he wants a bump stock that badly, make him buy a 3D machine, download plans (probably watched by FBI, NSA etc..) and then screw with it forever to get it to work? Most likely he will give up and never get a workable model, or somebody will rat his ass out before anyone gets hurt.

  2. But a terrorist will get whatever he wants, no matter what it cost!! He/She is networked in either local or global cells that is what you people fail to realize.

  3. What does it matter? It just makes things a little easier. You can keep your eye and stance a little better than a reload. So? The time difference isn’t substantial. So, who cares? An anti-gunner, that’s who. They have no idea of what it is but they’ll argue about it anyway. They simply don’t understand any of it so they just argue against any of it. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is clear. These gun laws seem unconstitutional.

  4. I agree with you in that a Bump-fire stock is not something I want in the hands of terrorists. But, if a terrorist wants one then they will simply use some of the millions of dollars worth of funds they have available to make one. Anytime there is a demand someone will step in to supply that demand. The drug situation is a good example. If folks here in the USA did not demand to have these drugs then there would be no reason for the cartels and gangs to sattempt to suppply them.
    I also know that aiming after that 3rd shot is extremely difficult depending on the gun you are using. Some of the full auto firearms are heavy enough on the front-end and have a good enough brake/compensator to prevent most of the muzzle flip. Personally, I like the double-tap method. But, going back tothe theme of this conversation, although I do not see a need for a bump-fire I do not see how they can be surpressed by passing more laws. The good citizen will not buy one and the criminal will find a way to get one if they want it bad enough. Then, what would you do about all of the ones currently in existance? You can’t very easily ask people to turn them in without paying them a lot for their “loss”. Personally, I think we need more control over people with questionable mental health.

  5. Lets be realistic, a terrorist can get their hands on fully automatic weapons if they wish. They will not even bother with a ‘bump-stock’.
    In my opinion, the Vegas shooting would have made no difference, the people were pack-in like ‘sardines in a barrel’, he would have achieved the same with just pulling the trigger on a semi-auto rifle. Furthermore, I did not even know of this item – the news media made it go national and every ‘crazy’ now wants to run out an get one. Great job. Bottom line, bans don’t work – Evil will always find a way.

  6. Given that the 2nd amendment isn’t about sporting use but as defense against a superior force > a tyrannical government . Most military men have heard the term interlocking fields of fire . Such tactics can mean a denial of access to a defensive position with what is often called a ‘wall of lead’. Since the government has ALREADY violated the intent of the second amendment by denying access to automatic weapons, bump-stocks are a viable option. Do I think this is why the rush on sales? Naaa. In our relatively stable society MOST gun owners don’t think in terms of organized militia scenarios … unfortunately. Yeah – for most it’s the novelty and the fun. AND WHY NOT ! EXACTLY WHO IS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO INFRINGE ON MY CHOICE OF WEAPON ?? Anyone who is advocating an end run around the established Constitutional means for amending our cONSTITUTION is an ENEMY of all true patriots, and SHOULD BE PROSECUTED VIGOROUSLY !SERIOUSLY ! Are they not violating the highest law of the land?

Comments are closed.