Skip to comments.Bump-Stock-Type Devices A Proposed Rule by the ATF on 03/29/2018
Posted on 03/29/2018 6:19:10 AM PDT by old-ager
he Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that bump fire stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are machineguns as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at federalregister.gov ...
Rule my ass. Pass a damned law. We’re not a nation of rules.
So, do I have to get rid of all my rubber bands?
This “definition” just manufactures a fake reality. A machine gun fires more than one round with a single cycle of the trigger. With bump fire the rifle still only fires once with each pull of the trigger. Whether that pull is initiated by momentum or the muscles of a finger it still fires only one round per pull or cycle of the trigger.
continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger
The bump stock is designed to make it easier to pull the trigger rapidly. It does not operate with a single pull of the trigger.
And your thumb and your belt-loop in your pants too.
I wrote my Senators when this was first proposed to tell them I supported the proposal that if they were to do a bump-stock ban, they should trade it for nationwide reciprocal concealed carry. I guess that ain’t happening.
“harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”
The bump fire does not occur without a finger moving the trigger.
Don’t misinterpret me here. I am not defending this thing.
A detail though: it explicitly mentions rubber bands and belt loops as not covered and as allowable.
Only applies to property taken by the government for public use.
The new magical interpretation is that because your trigger finger simply rests on a shelf on the slide stock, and you provide forward pressure on the forearm with your off hand, the forward pressure becomes the new "trigger," and with constant forward pressure the gun continues to cycle until forward pressure or the trigger finger is removed.
"One action of the 'trigger'" is pushing forward on the forearm.
I think it sucks, and will have to be litigated in court.
...One action of the ‘trigger’” is pushing forward on the forearm.
I think it sucks, and will have to be litigated in court...
BATFE would simply draft another fictional reason why it falls into the machine gun category.
Rule making has time period for making comments on proposed rules .
Perhaps some of the posters here might wish to provide their analysis and voice their disapproval in the NTM comment process.
Chances are , this rule proposal is shot down after all the comments have been taken into account.
The process will take another few months so by the time the rule making processes is finished, peoples emotions will have cooled off.
The only reason Obama’s minions from Hell legalized bump stocks was as a vehicle by which to attack all semi-automatic weapons.
I suppose “public benefit” isn’t sufficient. They assert public benefit, in whatever words.
“I wrote my Senators when this was first proposed to tell them I supported the proposal that if they were to do a bump-stock ban, they should trade it for nationwide reciprocal concealed carry. I guess that aint happening.”
This “rule” can and should be fought in the courts. The ATFs OWN RULES demonstrate that a bump stock is NOT a machine gun, since the trigger must be pulled once for each shot fired.
FYI, I don’t own a bump stock, nor was I planning on getting one - but the principle of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is at issue here, so NO COMPROMISE (well, not unless we can open up the full auto registry - and the other side will NEVER agree to that).
“BATFE would simply draft another fictional reason why it falls into the machine gun category.”
This will make for an interesting court case if the rule goes through.
It pisses me off to even be arguing about these stupid points.
The better argument is where in the 2nd amendment does it say that automatic weapons can be restricted? Why have we even allowed ourselves to be conditioned to believe that automatic weapons are not part of our rights granted by the 2nd amendment.
Time to bombard them during the public comment period.
“Why, no, Officer, it’s not a bump-stock. It’s a paper weight that just happens to look like a bump-stock.”
You don’t even need a stock.
You only need one finger and another hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.