Ghost wrote:They changed the definition of machine gun in order to pull it off. Everything is at risk with this.
Actually, they created a legal definition of "single operation of the trigger" that doesn't match physical reality or common sense. Machine guns are still defined as they were according to statute previously. But the phrase "single operation of the trigger" had no specific legal definition, so they created one that would allow them to ban bump stocks. The problem is that absent a legal definition in statute, the plain and generally understood meaning of the term should be used. And their new definition of "single operation" doesn't fit the plain and generally understood meaning.
ATF could have always raised the case that binary triggers are machine guns, if "single operation" was deemed to be a complete trigger cycle- starting with the trigger forward, through the press, and then back out to reset where you started, then binary triggers are in fact machine guns. However binary triggers would be legal if a "single operation" would be determined to be a single movement, either forward or backward. I've always told people that binary triggers are on very dangerous legal grounds. But with bump stocks, regardless of the ambiguity that binary triggers have, the trigger most certainly is "operated" more than once. And one round is fired per every operation.
Basically if I understand the determination correctly, ATF is claiming that a "single operation" of the trigger begins the firing sequence, but because the operator never moves his finger to continue firing, but instead the weapon and its trigger cycles underneath a stationary finger, that a continuous string of fire is produced from a "single operation". The problem is, while it technically *is* a single operation/movement of the trigger finger, the trigger is most definitely being operated multiple times, and one round is fired per each operation.
Basically, if I were a lawyer involved in suing ATF over this redefinition, I would focus on the phrase "single operation of the trigger" as it exists in statute, and highlight that the ATF is mistaking a single operation of the shooters trigger finger for a single operation of the trigger. The former describes the actual function of the firearm, the latter describes how the shooter is operating it. Because the statute only speaks to the operation of the firearm, and does *not* speak to the shooter, his movements, or how he choses to operate the firearm, the ATF is inventing a definition thats outside the scope of the statute. Basically ATF has confused "trigger finger" (which is the operator) with "trigger" (which is the gun) in writing this determination. A true and honest court should find that the determination is in error, and that banning bump stocks would require new legislation be passed by congress and signed into law by the president.