Posted on 11/15/2018 8:06:39 AM PST by Simon Green
“The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that would interpret the statutory definition of machine gun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that definition.”
That’s the intro (or “abstract”) to the DoJ’s newly issued public rule following their re-examination of the classification of bump fire stocks. This, of course, was done after last year’s Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting in which 58 people were killed and hundreds more were injured. That was the only crime in which a bump fire stock had ever been used.
The ATF had issued an approval letter to SlideFire for their bump fire stock back in 2010 that read, in part:
“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. … Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”
That was, of course, the correct ruling under the law as written.
In February, however, President Trump directed Justice to take another look at them, a move that was supported at the time by the NRA. He apparently wanted the ATF to look deeply into the emanations and penumbras of the law to see if, just maybe, there was a way to look at bump fire stocks in a whole new way.
Well, take another look they have, and — to the surprise of no one — now that we’re past the midterms, the DoJ has now classified bump fire stocks as NFA-regulated items, the legal equivalent of a machine gun.
This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and 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.
You can read the full rule here.
There’s only one problem. As stated above,
…such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.
That’s demonstrably false. As anyone who’s used one can tell you, a bump fire stock slides back and forth, allowing the shooter to pull the trigger faster. But the rifle still fires only one round per trigger pull. It may simulate rapid fire approximating what a fully automatic weapon does, but it’s still semi-automatic.
That, of course, was the basis for the ATF’s original approval eight years ago. But the law and the facts apparently aren’t in play when there are larger, political considerations.
From the rule’s costs and benefits section:
This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.
Just how the DoJ plans to handle the millions of unregistered bump fire stocks that are already owned by the public isn’t clear.
So far, there’s no word from the administration as to when they intend to begin the notice and comment process on the proposed reclassification of rubber bands as machine guns, but we’ll keep you informed.
Facts are stubborn things. Don’t let your enthusiasm for Trump obscure the truth. Of course it is true that Obama is fundamentally opposed to civilian gun ownership, but Trump is hardly a full throated defender of thr RTKBA.
Chief Tecumseh went to visit the cabin of a friend, finding the friend absent he decided to cook up a pot of meat. As he was preparing the meat he heard the door open slightly. He wondered what may have opened the door.
Being patient he waited to see what developed. Soon there was a nose and only a nose sticking through the doorway sniffing the aroma inside the cabin. Tecumseh had his suspicions but was still not sure who this encroaching friend could be and turned back around to stir his pot of meat. He thought to himself, “It is only smelling the aroma and not harming anything”.
Soon he heard the door move again and turned to see the head, only to the shoulders, of the neighborhood watch dog and protector eying the pot of meat. This time he yelled at the dog to go away only to turn a few minutes later and see the dog had returned and had now fully encroached into the cabin. He yelled at the dog again but it would not leave the cabin.
As he contemplated the event the dog had now encroached all the way up to his feet demanding a portion of the meal. Tecumseh now realized that the situation was a loss whether he shared some meat with the dog or not. He was now stuck with the dog for good until even the very smell of the meat was gone or until he did something very severe to chase the dog off.
As he shared his meal with the dog, he reviewed the event thinking about how the dog had slowly encroached into the cabin little by little as he, Tecumseh, had allowed it by just watching and waiting. The dog slowly forced his way in because there was no immediate protest and action against him pushing the door open to stick his sniffing nose into the cabin doorway.
Tecumseh learned something in this event and stated to himself “If I had only latched the door closed right away to keep the nose out, I would not have ended up with the whole dog.”
~ Condensed from the novel about the life of Chief Tecumseh “Panther in the sky” by James Alexander Thom. Great book with many more examples of Government encroachment.
This will be overturned via a lawsuit
Maybe Whittaker can do something about this.
Absolutely... An inch becomes a foot, A foot becomes a yard, A yard becomes a mile...
I’ll still take a good blot action rifle any day. Why waste ammo? Don’t believe me? Stand back 600 yards and spray at me then see what happens.
Here’s a perspective that YOU should be ready to deal with, as someone who is not all that familiar with gun law issues: We gun owners have been taking steps backwards in an attempt to “be reasonable,” etc. since 1934. Only very rarely, and to a very minor extent, have the rights that have been stolen since then been restored. What good is a “right” if it is not enforced or protected in all time periods and across the entire country? My grandfathers COULD have bought full autos at their local Sears & Roebuck for cash, no CLEO sign-off, no tax stamps, no questions - SO WHY CAN’T I DO THE SAME?
Here is a better summary of what has happened over the last 84 years:
Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”
I say, “No, it’s my cake.”
You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.
So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.
Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.
I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.”
From “Lawdog” https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html?showComment=1285384385988#c6434453110329887129
See my #47. It is the Gun Rights Cake analogy - with specific references to particular gun laws over the last 84 years. It teaches the same lesson as Tecumsah learned the hard way with that dog.
[I’m a constitutionalist, firm believer in 2nd amendment, but have zero interaction with firearms]
Therein lies the problem with your following rationale.
They did exactly that before with semi autos that fired from an item bolt.
Ah, bump stocks are for dummies....You can find lots of videos on the internet of “real” gun guys shooting semi autos more accurately, as fast or in some cases, faster than bump stocks.
There is a reason the real AR has a switch to burst vs full auto - you are out of ammo or melting your barrel too quick, as well as not accurate.
Same as the caliber debate - a 9mm delivered on target is better than a .40 missed every day.
And belt loops...
Exactly right. When they talk about compromise, I notice I always lose something, but they don’t have to give up anything THEY want.
Maybe offer me nationwide constitutional carry. Maybe deregulate 22lr and any lever actions and bolt weapons completely. Maybe define them as non -firearms.
Government: we produce nothing, we consume vast amounts of resources and force people to consume even more resources to make up the difference for our counterproductive doings.
Obviously the big government typeswill demand it should do more.
Ironically these are often the folks who demand we consume less to save the planet.
Reject progressivism, reject big government: save the planet ... you would give up your big government if you really really cared about the planet....
No argument as to which is most effective, but the fun factor favors bump fire. The issue here is the legality of DOJ in effect writing law rather than allowing congress to do its Comstitutional duty re law making.
The only reasonable gun control involves proper stance, aiming, reloading, storage and maintenance.
Wow. Guess it’s time to register my trigger finger. Implant a chip so BATFE will always know where it is.
These are crazy times and getting crazier all the time.
But you’re wrong.
As someone who has spent $2600.00 on tax stamps in order to exercise a Constitutional right I want serious reform of the NFA. Poll taxes have rightly been ruled unconstitutional, it is time that NFA be dealt the same fate.
I suppose the next Democrat administration can now rule that pocket knives are machine guns too.
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.