Bump fire stocks

[Ghost]

So IF I had a bump stock and mounted it on a Maverick 88 pump shotgun, my shotgun would now be classified as a machine gun? I’d be changed as a felony for the bump stock and a machine gun. My pockets aren’t deep enough. I wonder if someone else’s are? For government employee reading this, I don’t own a bump stock. )

I believe if you lay a bump stock on your table, now you have a MG on your table. What it's attached to doesn't matter. A bump stock is now a machine gun.

[Erud]

So IF I had a bump stock and mounted it on a Maverick 88 pump shotgun, my shotgun would now be classified as a machine gun? I’d be changed as a felony for the bump stock and a machine gun. My pockets aren’t deep enough. I wonder if someone else’s are? For government employee reading this, I don’t own a bump stock. )

Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think you need to mount it to anything in order to be a felon. The stock itself is the crime, according to the excellent new NRA-approved ATF ruling.

[Ghost]

So IF I had a bump stock and mounted it on a Maverick 88 pump shotgun, my shotgun would now be classified as a machine gun? I’d be changed as a felony for the bump stock and a machine gun. My pockets aren’t deep enough. I wonder if someone else’s are? For government employee reading this, I don’t own a bump stock. )

Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think you need to mount it to anything in order to be a felon. The stock itself is the crime, according to the excellent new NRA-approved ATF ruling.

I wouldn't say the NRA did us any favors but they didn't say to ban them so I think the NRA's participation should qualify them with an asterisk. This one is one Trump ran with because he didn't know any better.

I do believe Lapierre and Cox should not be part of the NRA, and that idiot woman in Florida.

As an NRA lifer I'm at the point were they don't get any more money until significant change in direction is made.

[xd ED]

Here is a link to the latest final version of the ATF document: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1120876/download.

The summary follows:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull ofthe 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
(Billing Code:
4410-FY-P)
firing without additional physical manipulation ofthe 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 ofthe trigger. With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, 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 final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date ofthe statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule,

it would seem they declared these things as 'machine guns' to use the regulatory language regarding manufacture dates of the long standing NFA, and GCA, all the while admitting the reason they are being banned is because of their potential as an accessory.

I wonder if someone will run with this definition and get themselves arrested for being in possession of a rubber band?

[Ghost]

Here is a link to the latest final version of the ATF document: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1120876/download.

The summary follows:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull ofthe 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
(Billing Code:
4410-FY-P)
firing without additional physical manipulation ofthe 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 ofthe trigger. With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, 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 final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date ofthe statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule,

it would seem they declared these things as 'machine guns' to use the regulatory language regarding manufacture dates of the long standing NFA, and GCA, all the while admitting the reason they are being banned is because of their potential as an accessory.

I wonder if someone will run with this definition and get themselves arrested for being in possession of a rubber band?

They changed the definition of machine gun in order to pull it off. Everything is at risk with this.

[BigDog58]

So, do those with an SOT Class 1, 2 or 3 get to keep their "Bump Stocks"?

They can't qualify for "Regular Joe" to own one, as I don't believe they were manufactured prior to 1986.

Unless, those of us that are Old Farts born prior to 1986, and have a damn fast trigger finger

[Scratch]

So, do those with an SOT Class 1, 2 or 3 get to keep their "Bump Stocks"?

They can't qualify for "Regular Joe" to own one, as I don't believe they were manufactured prior to 1986.

Unless, those of us that are Old Farts born prior to 1986, and have a damn fast trigger finger

It sounds like they "might" be able to form 2 them and keep them, but I know there are multiple dealers filing lawsuits as we type.

[Holland&Holland]

Here is a link to the latest final version of the ATF document: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1120876/download.

The summary follows:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull ofthe 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
(Billing Code:
4410-FY-P)
firing without additional physical manipulation ofthe 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 ofthe trigger. With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, 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 final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date ofthe statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule,

it would seem they declared these things as 'machine guns' to use the regulatory language regarding manufacture dates of the long standing NFA, and GCA, all the while admitting the reason they are being banned is because of their potential as an accessory.

I wonder if someone will run with this definition and get themselves arrested for being in possession of a rubber band?

Owning both polymer and an oven qualify as constructive intent.

[Ghost]

Here is a link to the latest final version of the ATF document: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1120876/download.

The summary follows:

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are "machineguns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull ofthe 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
(Billing Code:
4410-FY-P)
firing without additional physical manipulation ofthe 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 ofthe trigger. With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, 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 final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date ofthe statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule,

it would seem they declared these things as 'machine guns' to use the regulatory language regarding manufacture dates of the long standing NFA, and GCA, all the while admitting the reason they are being banned is because of their potential as an accessory.

I wonder if someone will run with this definition and get themselves arrested for being in possession of a rubber band?

Owning both polymer and an oven qualify as constructive intent.

Guess we'll have to ban 3D printers.

[Holland&Holland]

Guess we'll have to ban 3D printers.

Oh, so you are a manufacturer without a license then.

[Ghost]

Guess we'll have to ban 3D printers.

Oh, so you are a manufacturer without a license then.

Exactly

[jshuberg]

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.

[Ghost]

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 operation 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. Basically ATF has confused "trigger finger" (which is the operator) with "trigger" (which is the gun) in writing this determination.

It takes two hands to use a bumpstock so there’s significantly more involved than a single trigger pull.

[jshuberg]

It takes two hands to use a bumpstock so there’s significantly more involved than a single trigger pull.

It doesn't matter how many hands are used. Nothing in the statute speaks to the operator, his movements, how many hands he's using, etc. The statute doesn't speak to the operator, or what technique is used to fire the gun. All the statute says is "single operation of the trigger" which describes the mechanical operation of the gun itself. And a semi-auto gun, regardless of how the operator chooses to fire it, still only fires once per operation of the trigger.

ATF got this wrong. Plain and simple. Hopefully the courts will properly interpret the law as written instead of allowing ATF to create new law, which is a completely different conversation...

[Ghost]

It takes two hands to use a bumpstock so there’s significantly more involved than a single trigger pull.

It doesn't matter how many hands are used. Nothing in the statute speaks to the operator, his movements, how many hands he's using, etc. The statute doesn't speak to the operator, or what technique is used to fire the gun. All the statute says is "single operation of the trigger" which describes the mechanical operation of the gun itself. And a semi-auto gun, regardless of how the operator chooses to fire it, still only fires once per operation of the trigger.

ATF got this wrong. Plain and simple. Hopefully the courts will properly interpret the law as written instead of allowing ATF to create new law, which is a completely different conversation...

That was my point