Bump fire stocks

[jshuberg]

I'd also like to point out that bump stocks are *probably* already illegal in MN, although there's been no test case yet. Unlike the federal machine gun ban, MN also classifies "trigger activators" as machine guns:

"Trigger activator" means a removable manual or power driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that, when attached to a firearm, the rate at which the trigger may be pulled increases and the rate of fire of the firearm increases to that of a machine gun.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.67

A bump stock is a removable device that was specifically constructed and designed to increase the rate of fire to that of a machine gun when attached to a semi-auto firearm. The only ambiguity is the meaning of "trigger activating". Technically, the stock doesn't activate the trigger directly. Some other object that isn't a part of the bump stock must be used as a mechanical link between the finger stop on the stock and the guns trigger. In theory that object could be anything, but in practice it's pretty much always the operators finger. So the legal question is does the absence of the mechanical linkage between bump stock and trigger let bump stocks "off the hook" as being trigger activators. My humble guess is no.

A firearm thats completed more than 80% is considered to be a firearm. A bump stock, minus the linkage that activates the trigger (the shooters finger) is most certainly more than 80% complete. So my guess is that if a test case were to occur, the courts would find bump stocks illegal in MN.

For those who come back with a counter argument of belt loops, a belt loop isn't installed on the firearm, where a bump stock is. For those who come back with rubber bands or shoe laces or similar devices installed externally to the firearm, those devices were not specifically designed and constructed to increase the rate of fire of a firearm, where a bump stock is. Bump stocks *probably* meet the statutory definition of a trigger activator, but none of the other things people commonly use to bump fire a gun do. A bump stock is unique in that it is both installed on the firearm, and was specifically designed to increase the rate at which it can be fired by most operators.

It's possible a good lawyer could argue the point that because bump stocks lack the linkage that actually operates the trigger, it's not a trigger activator. But I wouldn't bet on it. Especially not with the makeup of the MN courts.

[BigDog58]

I'd also like to point out that bump stocks are *probably* already illegal in MN, although there's been no test case yet. Unlike the federal machine gun ban, MN also classifies "trigger activators" as machine guns:

"Trigger activator" means a removable manual or power driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that, when attached to a firearm, the rate at which the trigger may be pulled increases and the rate of fire of the firearm increases to that of a machine gun.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.67

A bump stock is a removable device that was specifically constructed and designed to increase the rate of fire to that of a machine gun when attached to a semi-auto firearm. The only ambiguity is the meaning of "trigger activating". Technically, the stock doesn't activate the trigger directly. Some other object that isn't a part of the bump stock must be used as a mechanical link between the finger stop on the stock and the guns trigger. In theory that object could be anything, but in practice it's pretty much always the operators finger. So the legal question is does the absence of the mechanical linkage between bump stock and trigger let bump stocks "off the hook" as being trigger activators. My humble guess is no.

A firearm thats completed more than 80% is considered to be a firearm. A bump stock, minus the linkage that activates the trigger (the shooters finger) is most certainly more than 80% complete. So my guess is that if a test case were to occur, the courts would find bump stocks illegal in MN.

For those who come back with a counter argument of belt loops, a belt loop isn't installed on the firearm, where a bump stock is. For those who come back with rubber bands or shoe laces or similar devices installed externally to the firearm, those devices were not specifically designed and constructed to increase the rate of fire of a firearm, where a bump stock is. Bump stocks *probably* meet the statutory definition of a trigger activator, but none of the other things people commonly use to bump fire a gun do. A bump stock is unique in that it is both installed on the firearm, and was specifically designed to increase the rate at which it can be fired by most operators.

It's possible a good lawyer could argue the point that because bump stocks lack the linkage that actually operates the trigger, it's not a trigger activator. But I wouldn't bet on it. Especially not with the makeup of the MN courts.

Bryan, I'm asking for your opinion on the issue below.

What would be the status if we were to lower the "pull weight" of the trigger? Such as dropping it from 3 pounds to let's say ounces (2 to 10 ounces)? Lowering the pull weight can allow rapid fire, on semi-auto firearms, even though that was not the original intent. Many target shooters use extremely low pull weight for accuracy (mostly single shot firearms), but the principle could be adapted. It's still One Pull, One Round fired.

Thanks,
Jim

[jshuberg]

Bryan, I'm asking for your opinion on the issue below.

What would be the status if we were to lower the "pull weight" of the trigger? Such as dropping it from 3 pounds to let's say ounces (2 to 10 ounces)? Lowering the pull weight can allow rapid fire, on semi-auto firearms, even though that was not the original intent. Many target shooters use extremely low pull weight for accuracy (mostly single shot firearms), but the principle could be adapted. It's still One Pull, One Round fired.

I don't think you were asking me, but I don't think that lowering trigger weight could in any way be interpreted as making a machine gun. Federally, there's still one round per operation of the trigger, even by ATF's new definition of "single operation" that they made up for bump stocks. I mean technically if ATF presumes they can change the meaning of commonly understood terms and phrases, they could reinterpret a statute to mean damn near anything. But I don't think it would survive a court challenge. Plus it would piss off the fudds, which is not something the antigunners are interested in doing at this point.

At the state level, a lower weight trigger is not a removable device that activates the trigger, it *is* the trigger. And even though the trigger group as an assembly or individual components can be replaced by a competent armorer, it's not considered a "removable" device, as a firearm wouldn't function without them. Even if you replaced just the trigger spring which is technically not the trigger itself (but *is* still a part of the trigger group), the trigger spring does *not* activate the trigger. It does the exact opposite in fact, it provides resistance *against* the activation of the trigger. Even if you lower the weight to nearly zero, it's still an opposing force resisting the activation of the trigger, not something that in and of itself activates it. What does fit the definition of a trigger activator are things like Gat cranks, and probably bump stocks, etc.

Any kind of crazy nonsense is possible when a lawyer gets his greasy little hands on it, especially a liberal anti-gun lawyer. But my humble non-lawyer opinion is that this isn't anything to worry about. Binary triggers, probably. Bump stocks, unfortunately yes, at least until a test case (hopefully) strikes down ATFs distorted redefinitions. But lowering the trigger weight, or putting in a custom match trigger, that doesn't come close to fitting any of these definitions IMHO.

[Holland&Holland]

I'd also like to point out that bump stocks are *probably* already illegal in MN, although there's been no test case yet. Unlike the federal machine gun ban, MN also classifies "trigger activators" as machine guns:

"Trigger activator" means a removable manual or power driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that, when attached to a firearm, the rate at which the trigger may be pulled increases and the rate of fire of the firearm increases to that of a machine gun.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.67

A bump stock is a removable device that was specifically constructed and designed to increase the rate of fire to that of a machine gun when attached to a semi-auto firearm. The only ambiguity is the meaning of "trigger activating". Technically, the stock doesn't activate the trigger directly. Some other object that isn't a part of the bump stock must be used as a mechanical link between the finger stop on the stock and the guns trigger. In theory that object could be anything, but in practice it's pretty much always the operators finger. So the legal question is does the absence of the mechanical linkage between bump stock and trigger let bump stocks "off the hook" as being trigger activators. My humble guess is no.

A firearm thats completed more than 80% is considered to be a firearm. A bump stock, minus the linkage that activates the trigger (the shooters finger) is most certainly more than 80% complete. So my guess is that if a test case were to occur, the courts would find bump stocks illegal in MN.

For those who come back with a counter argument of belt loops, a belt loop isn't installed on the firearm, where a bump stock is. For those who come back with rubber bands or shoe laces or similar devices installed externally to the firearm, those devices were not specifically designed and constructed to increase the rate of fire of a firearm, where a bump stock is. Bump stocks *probably* meet the statutory definition of a trigger activator, but none of the other things people commonly use to bump fire a gun do. A bump stock is unique in that it is both installed on the firearm, and was specifically designed to increase the rate at which it can be fired by most operators.

It's possible a good lawyer could argue the point that because bump stocks lack the linkage that actually operates the trigger, it's not a trigger activator. But I wouldn't bet on it. Especially not with the makeup of the MN courts.

And what states have you passed the bar of?

[jshuberg]

Do you believe my analysis is in error?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holland&Holland]

Do you believe my analysis is in error?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, I do.

[Grayskies]

Do you believe my analysis is in error?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, I do.

Could you state why and how his analysis is in error please?

[Holland&Holland]

Do you believe my analysis is in error?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, I do.

Could you state why and how his analysis is in error please?

I could. Would it matter?

[Grayskies]

It would let us, including jshuberg, see your reasoning. Debating is a good way for all to learn.

[andrewP]

Could you state why and how his analysis is in error please?

I could. Would it matter?

No idea whether it would matter, but Grayskies is not the only one who would be curious to see your reasoning laid out.

[Holland&Holland]

It would let us, including jshuberg, see your reasoning. Debating is a good way for all to learn.

That may be, but I don't have the time right now to lay it out. Suffice it to say that if you want to post anti gun crap please by all means do so. There is an equally well laid out argument that basically states that it is not a trigger activator. If JS wants to go work for the state AG I am sure Paulson is taking aps.

[Ghost]

Every new beginning comes from some other beginnings end.

https://www.lordrockwell.com/products

This is not a bumpstock. That one piece stock and grip and whatever that mystery part is are just a couple pieces in a new system of pew things, none of which are a bumpstock.

The new rule that was issued reinterpreting what bumpstocks and machine guns are is actually pretty narrow. Lord Rockwell has provisional patents on new pew technology that supersedes the bumpstock, but also has a wider application and purpose in the market.

The Not-A-Bumpstock is not a bumpstock. And it's most definitely not a machine gun. As is the timeless tale of regulation, governments ban things, and the marketplace replaces them with new products to comply with the law. For non-gun owners, it's like that upcoming iPhone Jailbreak that you know is inevitable.

We chose to wait to announce the product until after the bumpstock ban so that regulators did not arbitrarily target our product too. That would have been particulary upsetting since it's not a bumpstock. Among other things, the Not-A-Bumpstock aids injured veterans, the elderly, and others with disabilities to be able to shoot again, and shoot very fast.

While we're poised to benefit from the bumpstock ban, we support the lawsuits that are seeking to overturn it. Our product will have a place in the market with or without a bumpstock ban. We respect President Trump and his desire to keep American's safe. A ban on bumpstocks does not improve public safety, but will make several hundred thousand people into potential felons.

We're letting the market know an alternative product exists. The Not-A-Bumpstocks are a more complex system. More than just replacing a grip and stock. The Not-A-Bumpstocks will be available as conversions kits for existing firearms and as complete firearms with an integral Not-A-Bumpstock. More details on the operation, safety, and availability of Not-A-Bumpstocks will follow after Christmas.

We will be following standard procedures of submitting the device to the ATF's technology branch for their review of compliance with existing law and the new bumpstock rule ahead of shipping them to customers and distributors. But let your heart be not troubled, it's Not-A-Bumpstock.

[LarryFlew]

Would you believe someone just offered to trade his bump stock for one of the Rugers i have for sale.

[Ghost]

Would you believe someone just offered to trade his bump stock for one of the Rugers i have for sale.

Yes, good deal for them. Bad for you, unless you really wanted one.

[xd ED]

Would you believe someone just offered to trade his bump stock for one of the Rugers i have for sale.

That could work...with the right amount of cash...say, the price of the Ruger plus a 25% handling fee.