TTAG Exclusive: ATF’s Proposal to Regulate Bump Fire Stocks as Machine Guns

The ATF proposes to regulate bump fire stocks like machine guns

As we reported earlier today, our friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Really Big Fires is considering what kind of mental and logical contortions would be necessary to reverse their earlier decision regarding bump fire stocks. In other words, they’re trying to figure out how to go full Emily Litella, do a total 180 and regulate these innocuous pieces of plastic just as they would a Browning Ma Deuce.

By law, in order to do that they have to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, inviting public comments on their potential new inanity stance. And to get that process started they have to publish the NPRM in the federal register, something they anticipate doing tomorrow.

Thanks to our friends at the Military Arms Channel, we got our grubby little hands on their filing.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” 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. Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.

You can read the entire document here. Have at it.

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I wonder if it is a good thing that ATF didn’t decide that reviewing the NFA in order to “clarify” (as opposed to change [add new regulation]) an existing regulation falls into the category of action that does not require opening the review to public comment?

  2. avatar Elliot Herczeg says:

    While lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed support for the idea of banning bump stocks, it’s unclear whether these efforts will maintain enough momentum to get passed into law.

    Ar15 Receiver

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Well then tough tit. That’s their job. The ATF&E enforces the law, and they already said it doesn’t fall within their governance.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” The ATF&E enforces the law, and they already said it doesn’t fall within their governance.”

        They have admitted to being wrong before, and recovered nicely.

  3. avatar rc says:

    I know a lot of folks support this move as a convenient way to try and protect semi-autos, but I think this ruling by the ATF is arbitrary and illogical and outside of their purview. So, I think this is opens to door to all kinds of over-reach by the ATF in the future that we’re not going to like at all.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      The folks who support this are idiots, traitors, and cowards. They learned NOTHING from 1994.

      Unfortunately this will be used to ban all semi-auto pistols rifles and shotguns and there will be no recourse and no repeal, and the ATF will have a Carte Blanche to carry out Waco and Ruby Ridge style raids (aka entrapment and cold blooded murder) on average Americans.

      It’s going to be open season, and the NRA helped them do it. The NRA is for banning semi autos.

    2. avatar Tim says:

      The folks that support this have absolutely no concept of the danger it proposes.

      The ATF has ruled 4 separate times that the stocks aren’t machine guns. For them to make the stocks machine guns they will have to REDEFINE WHAT A SEMI-AUTO IS. Read the letter. They’re talking about “Rate Increasing Devices”.

      HELLO! What is a standard rate of fire for a AR15? Do you REALLY want the ATF to arbitrarily pick a standard rate of fire thus any gun or accessory (or perhaps person) who can cause it to fire faster than that is now considered to be a machine gun? What if the ATF says a semi-auto should not be able to fire more than 1 round per second? Ok, how do we restrict that rate of fire? Do you see just how dangerous this is?

      1. avatar Ton E says:

        That’s what we get for the NRA leadership legitimizing the BATFE making such determinations.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ” What if the ATF says a semi-auto should not be able to fire more than 1 round per second?”

        ‘This.’

        Tim *gets it*.

        They have already decided semi-autos must be banned. This is the camel nose under the tent…

        1. avatar Tim says:

          I’ve been screaming this from the rooftops since Vegas and NRA’s dumbass insistence that the ATF regulate them by redefining what a semi-automatic rifle is and what a “standard rate of fire” for them is. That’s EXACTLY what the NRA proposed and this is likely what the Trump administration is pushing for. Trump likely wants this off the front pages and wants people talking about tax reform, not bump stocks.

          So instead of fighting it in the legislature where we have a chance of defeating it like we have every AWB since the sunset of the 94 ban, we now have ATF (which has zero Congressional oversight) tasked with arbitrarily deciding what a standard rate of fire for a semi-auto is so they can then determine what a “rate increasing device” is under their “law” they drafted out of the thin blue air. Oh, yeah, and without an act of Congress.

          This is EXTREMELY dangerous and the people who still think “awe shucks, those bump stocks are stoopid let the gubberment have’m.” aren’t capable of well reasoned thought. They’re NRA lemmings that do as they’re told and believe everything they hear.

          NRA screwed us HARD with their ATF mandate, which is now included in HR38 (I bet you didn’t know that) and soon the ATF may decide that semi-automatics can’t fire more than 1 round a second, and if they do, those firearms are now subject to NFA regulations. If that happens, you can thank the NRA and the Republicans for doing the dirty work of Nanci Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Tim, by “NRA screwed us HARD with their ATF mandate, which is now included in HR38,” I am assuming you are referring to “(3) contains the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether subparagraphs (B)(i) and (C)(i) of section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, apply to all instances in which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime of violence in the United States.”

          (B)(i) and (C)(i) don’t have anything to do with machineguns. They are about enhanced minimum sentences for certain crimes committed with “short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon” or subsequent convictions, respectively.

          (B)(ii) and (C)(ii) deal with machineguns.

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “For them to make the stocks machine guns they will have to REDEFINE WHAT A SEMI-AUTO IS.” – Many argue that this is a ban on semi-autos. It’s not, but the reasoning is such that could lead to a ban on semi-autos. The reasoning is that “fast” is the same thing as “machinegun” even though speed has nothing to do with the definition of machinegun. Legally, a firearm that fires one round a minute could meet the definition of machinegun and be slower than any gun I’ve ever handled.

        A ban on semi-autos is clearly unconstitutional under the Heller and McDonald cases. The question then becomes, if the government bans semi-autos as machineguns, will the courts uphold Heller and McDonald? I think the 9th and 4th won’t, but the 7th, 5th, and D.C. circuit would. I’m not familiar enough with the other circuits or their 2A decisions to guess as to what they would do. I’d assume the SC would still not hear the case.

        1. avatar Tim says:

          Here’s the problem.

          Read the ATF letter. I’ve given you a rough draft where you can see ATF going back and forth on this.

          They have been told “make this go away”. They are now trying to circumvent Congress and do as they’re being told which is to ban bump fire stocks.

          How does the ATF define a bump fire stock? Look no further than the document I provided. It clearly says that ATF is defining bump fire stocks as “rate increase devices”. It says nothing about machine guns, and it doesn’t have to. All ATF has to do is set an arbitrary number, like 1 round per second, and any gun that fires faster than that has a “rate increasing device” installed and is now subject to NFA regulation. This would include any “rate increasing device” like a 2lbs match trigger.

          Is the danger this presents a little more clear now? It’s all in the document I’ve provided. If you read it carefully, it should scare the crap out of you if you’re pro 2A.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I did read the document you provided. Thank you. Big fan by the way. I agree with your logic. All I’m saying is that this isn’t a semi-auto ban, but it is the first step in a logical progression to a semi-auto ban. It is a ban on a thing that isn’t a machingegun under the logic that it is a machinegun.

          I believe that’s what they are going to do (ban a “not a machinegun” as a machinegun) because in the document you provided they reference ATF Ruling 2006-2. The ruling is titled “Classification of Devices Exclusively Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire* of a Semiautomatic Firearm.” That ruling held that the Akins Accelerator was a machinegun.

          As far as I can tell, I’m not personally familiar with the Akins Accelerator, it is a bump fire stock with some extra parts including a spring. The extra parts allow one to fire continuously without the forward pressure required of a typical bump fire stock. It does not fire continuously “by a single function of the trigger.” It is therefore not a machinegun, but was outlawed as such (after it was initially approved by the ATF).

          If they can outlaw the Akins Accelerator, they can outlaw a bump fire stock. If they can outlaw “firearms accessory devices that are designed and intended to accelerate the rate of fire for semiautomatic firearms,” (ATF Ruling 2006-2) they can, as you say, ban any “rate increasing device.” If they can outlaw a thing that isn’t illegal, they can outlaw anything, including semi-auto firearms.

          The one bright spot is that ATF Ruling 2006-2 is claimed to be about devices that are intended “exclusively” to increase the rate of fire. That would be binary triggers, but not match triggers because lighter triggers are more about accuracy than speed (or are at least about accuracy and not exclusively speed).

          A ban on bump fire stocks by the ATF would be an act outside of the law. Sadly, this is very common in our system. That’s one of the reasons it was considered “funny” when Justice Gorsuch said something along the lines of “wouldn’t it be easier if we just followed the law as written.”

          *As an aside, I’m no expert in the mechanics of firearms, but it is my understanding that a rate increasing device would actually include things (on an AR) like buffer springs, all the other stuff in a buffer tube, parts of the gas system, but not actually cover things like bump fire stocks, binary triggers, and basically anything better than the factory trigger group. Those latter things don’t actually increase the rate of fire but only increase the functional rate of fire. For example, Jerry Miculek has a video in which he fires a Barrett 50 cal as fast as mechanically possible. A binary trigger wouldn’t increase his rate of fire, actual or functional.

        3. avatar DoomGuy says:

          So what I gather from everything you’ve said is that a ban on semi autos is unconstitutional but the atf can do it if they want to, and they are going to ban semi autos. So we should just smile, bend over and grab our ankles because the atf is going to do what they want until the atf has fulfilled their purpose of destroying the 2A?

          Maybe I’m misreading but it sounds like you’re either all for it or you’re just telling us to give up.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe I’m misreading but it sounds like you’re either all for it or you’re just telling us to give up.”

          A viable alternative would be useful.

          Gov agencies care not what the public wants/thinks.

          There are not enough single-issue pro-2A voters to make an impression on elected officials.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          An unopposed government has the power to do whatever it wants. Power to do a thing is not the same as the lawful authority to do a thing. The ATF has previously outlawed things they have no authority to outlaw. (E.g. Akins Accelerator, shouldering a brace). No one stopped them.

          The ATF is an unopposed governmental agency exercising power outside its authority. That’s the history. Those are the facts. What you want to do it is up to you. “There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.” It isn’t my business to tell you where you think we are on that spectrum.

  4. avatar Hank says:

    Well, we stopped them cold when they tried to ban M855. Let’s get to it. The second amendment expects each of us to do our Duty.

  5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    In the filing, the ATF references ATF Ruling 2006-2, which was a ruling overturning a private letter determination that the Akins Accelerator was not a machine gun. The Akins Accelerator was a stock, spring and some other parts that functioned as a bump fire stock and the forward force needed to make a bump fire stock work. That device didn’t use “a single function of the trigger” anymore than a bump fire stock does.

    The Akins Accelerator was a much more effective bump fire device, but it was just a bump fire device. The trigger had to be pulled each and every time for a shot to be fired.

    Additionally, the filing never mentions the legal definition of the term machinegun because they don’t want to point out the inconsistency.

    Every question asked by the ATF in the filing has nothing to do with whether or not a bump fire device meets the legal definition of the term machinegun.

    My prediction is that the ATF will change its position and declare bump fire stocks as machineguns.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Which brings us to the obvious necessity of registering Jerry Miculek as a weapon of mass destruction…. how far does this “logic” extend?…… “It extends as far as we say it does.” – Bureau of Truth

      1. avatar Chris says:

        ^Brilliant. Hope no one from the ATF Reads your comment.

        1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          Fun fact: Jerry is already NFA stamped, we tattooed it on his left shoulder when he first started breaking records.

    2. avatar fiundagner says:

      I don’t know if anybody else has noticed this. But none of the questions have anything to do with Making these devices legal for sale. They all have to do with manufacturers retailers and consumers purchasing them. If these get Re regulated as machine guns none of them are on the registry. Which means every single one that has been sold becomes an automatic felony. And they’re asking people to self identify themselves for committing a felony. Doesn’t this kind of violate the Fifth Amendment?

      1. avatar Tim says:

        They can grandfather the existing items that were purchased before they were illegal. The most they can do is force you to file a tax free form to register it. That, or they can do as they did with the Atkins Accelerator and force owners to either turn in the stocks (no compensation) or turn in the spring from the stock which the ATF defined as the machine gun part. No amnesty was given and they didn’t offer to refund the owners their money for the now worthless stocks.

        1. avatar Knight who says "Ni!" says:

          “If they set aside their laws as and when they wish, it is not liberty. It is tyranny, and I’ll not suffer that yoke.” – Jack Winthrop

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          Because any land that sets aside its laws at a whim, is not under the rule of law, but instead under the rule of bureaucratic whim. And a bureaucrat will always have the whim to throughly destroy their opponents and support their friends and donors, the same as every human has always done.
          Thus everything becomes both forbidden, and yet completely fine, under such a system. So eventually the people just learn to ignore such foolishness, until such a time as they can come up with the will to violently remove it. Which, historically, they tend to do when the inherent criminality of such systems becomes in-your-face obvious.

        3. avatar TomD in CO says:

          How do you grandfather an item that has no serial number? How do you regulate something that has no serial number? They will have to either leave it as it is or completely ban them. Will they also ban bumpfire when there is no accessory attached except your hand with a finger in your pants pocket?

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “I don’t know if anybody else has noticed this. But none of the questions have anything to do with Making these devices legal for sale.” – Yes. See “Every question asked by the ATF in the filing has nothing to do with whether or not a bump fire device meets the legal definition of the term machinegun,” in the comment you responded to.

        “Doesn’t this kind of violate the Fifth Amendment?” – Only if they are coercing people to answer.

  6. avatar IdahoB says:

    Making a public comment requires providing the ATF with your full name and address or it will not be considered. In essence, you must inform them who you are and where to find you so that they will know where to find you when you’re in illegal possession.

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Have you ever payed for ammo or gun parts with a debit or credit card? do you visit any websites that are related to guns in some way?

      If you answer “yes” any of the questions above, they can find you.

      1. avatar ACP_arms says:

        Edit; ‘paid’

    2. avatar Concerned_citizen says:

      And this is why those most affected by the rule change will be censored from standing in opposition. If you are a person prone to such (well founded) paranoia, I suggest using a random name from the phone book along with some IP masking software, e.g. a VPN or TOR browser, when submitting comments. The less the feds know who opposes them, the safer we all are.

    3. avatar The Dude Abides says:

      You’ve got a social security number. You’re already on the grid. If you’re so afraid of the government putting you on a list if you sign a petition, you’re already on some list somewhere for something else. Don’t shrink away from helping keep democracy democratic.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
        -US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4
        I can’t find a single word about democracy anywhere….

      2. avatar Toni says:

        mate i am an aussie and i know full well that a democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner, a constitutional republic as yours if working as it is supposed to is a well armed sheep contesting the vote. democracy always removes individual liberty…. always. liberty is always to be highly prized even if it costs in blood to keep it

  7. avatar LiberalWithAGun says:

    I wouldn’t mind if they did this. But only if that’s for store bought stocks after the legislation passes and they open the machine gun registry back up to civilians.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      So you’d just ask to be granted the opportunity to beg for your civil rights? That really would be a liberal thing to do.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        If it’s a backdoor mechanism for reopening the machine gun registry it might – might – be worth it as a step towards eventual deregulation

        1. avatar Toni says:

          sorry but registries are always about power and control, nothing else. what needs to be done is to do away with all licensing and registration right throughout society as it is part of the trickery they do to make sheeple feel safe when in actual fact it does nothing but give them more power and control and removes your rights and liberty

  8. avatar MLee says:

    Since weapons that use bump stocks can be bump fired without such devices attached by simply holding the weapon in specific ways while firing it, what are they going to do about that? Create a law that says firing any weapon inconsistent with labeling is a violation of federal law?

    It could read something like this: When firing semi-automatic firearms where as the firearm fires with each consecutive pull of the trigger, the weapon shall be held firmly enough to ensure any resultant recoil action does not actuate trigger manipulation from the trigger hand or trigger finger by being held more firmly and stationary than the rest of the firearm.

    It can be the House Bill 223, bump-firing act of 2018

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Just something off the tips of my fingers:
      “Any firearm with the ability to fire more than one round per second, whether the firearm remains in OEM configuration, or is modified, shall be considered a machine gun. Firearms sold prior to (insert date) that, whether remaining in OEM configuration, or is modified, is subject to the provisions of this regulation. Owners of firearms capable of a rate of fire in excess of one round per second, whether in OEM or modified condition must have those firearms modified such as to prevent a rate of fire in excess of one round per second. Owners have until (insert date) to submit such firearms for modification restricting the rate of fire to one round per second (or less). Proof of submission for modification, and proof of completion of such modification must be retained with the firearm at all times, and shall transfer with the firearm should it be sold, traded or distributed as a result of either law, or inheritance. Modifications to firearms to meet this regulation must be completed prior to (insert date). Persons in violation of this regulation face federal criminal charges of $10,000, five years in jail, or both.

      1. avatar MLee says:

        Oh, I like it! Well, I mean I don’t like it, but I like it….if you know what I mean.

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          It won’t work. That’s stupid and the ATF isn’t smart enough to know how to test rates of fire, so they’ll just twist it into a blanket semi-auto ban. Don’t even try.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Presuming my fake regulation would be codified, the government wouldn’t need to test anything. They could simply demand manufacturers establish the capability, and demonstrate that their “fix” actually meets the requirements. ATF could send inspectors to each manufacturing facility to observe the testing and review the records for compliance.

          Point of the exercise (fake regulation) was to demonstrate that even a former fed not employed in the firearms regulation arena can create onerous regulations, so do not presume someone who is intimately familiar with government intentions to disarm the public cannot do the same or better. You can argue that government employees are too dumb to be effective at anything, but they are cunning beyond imagination.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Got it. Thanx

      2. avatar Defens says:

        So I’m supposed to modify my double action revolvers?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Any firearm….”

          “Any” is absolute.

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ““Any firearm with the ability to fire more than one round per second, whether the firearm remains in OEM configuration, or is modified, shall be considered a machine gun.”

        Oh, they’d *love* to do that.

        Kinda like ‘microstamping’, they will demand technology to be developed to meet their whim.

        Some kind of electro-mechanical ‘trick’ to block the trigger-sear for one second…

      4. avatar SparkyInWI says:

        So do I chop off my trigger finger then? I can easily shoot 6 rounds from my AR in .90 to .92 seconds consistently and I am a bit slow compared to other guys. I know a few guys who shoot .82 to .85 consistently. And my AR has an ALG trigger so stock pull weight… etc., not any fancy specialized trigger. We all use stock triggers only for defensive or deployment ARs. And here is a vid of an FBI operator who presented his carbine from low ready and fired 6 rounds on target in 1.35 sec. His presentation to the 1st shot was .58 sec and his 6 shots were in .77 sec. This fellow could have placed 7 shots in there and been under 1 sec.

        https://www.facebook.com/Chriswagonerfirearmsinstructor/videos/1853104488333042/

        So a regular AR with a decent shooter and some practice can easily put 6 shots on target in under 1 sec. So that would immediately outlaw every semi-auto AR rifle. No bumpstock is needed to effectively place 6 shots onto a target in 1 sec. Just practice with trigger manipulation is required. And it will be far more accurate and effective fire than the bumpstock, rubber band, etc. other things you can find out there folks do.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are describing current conditions. My fake “regulation” sets up a condition where your AR, or any other firearm, must be modified or manufactured, such that a rate-of-fire more than one shot per second would be a felony violation. Failure to have your firearm modified would, if you are found in possession or use (defensive?) after a date certain. That would mechanically put an end to any ability to fire the weapon faster than one round per second. It might render your firearm useless altogether. Hiding your weapon would restrict its use to the mythical armed revolution ignited by patriots who have yet to recognize any “red line” regarding federal overreach.

  9. avatar Erik says:

    Hit them up in the negative. I really don’t know how the comments work in real life but assume they are used as a barometer of how and whom people will vote. If an overwhelming majority sides in the pro bump fire side then it will show politicians they are at risk of losing their Club Med memberships.

  10. avatar Chadwick says:

    Well if I’m going to be a felon anyway I might as well go full giggle switch. Thanks BATFags!

  11. avatar the phantom says:

    personally, i couldn’t care less abt the stoopid, bloody things….
    firing high volumes of rounds through yr rifle will just wreck the brrl any-way;
    that’s why full autos have special, heavier, chromed brrls…

    any-one with a modicum of manual skill and a reasonable home work-shop could v quickly convert any s/a to f/a any-way….or…even make an SMG like a “grease gun” or “STEN gun”…. (one of the easiest guns to make)

    so…..what the HELL does such a stoopid ‘ban’ achieve any-way…. [?]

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      it bans all repeating firearms, that’s what, you fool

      1. avatar the phantom says:

        hunh?
        that was the Feinstein Bill that never got up…..
        the BATFE can’t ban any-thing w/out legislation to back it up….

        1. avatar that one guy says:

          …unless they redefine something to be included into existing legislation…which is exactly what this proposal is.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Sometimes it is profitable to read with comprehension in mind, rather than flinging knee jerk vitriol. The implications of what will be required in order to word the regulations in order to make bump fire stocks fit the definition of “machine gun” are at the heart of this, not just the bump fire stock. The government can create language that, like Californication, makes ALL semi-auto firearms “machine guns”. Thus, regardless of concealed or open carry, or whatever, the mere possession or use of a semi-auto firearm will be illegal. This would effectively restrict your semi-auto firearms to use in wilderness areas where you can secret your guns and shoot them. Any other use would be detected and possible reported to authorities. This would include use of semi-auto firearms for self-defense. Such a ruling by the ATF could collapse the entire firearm industry. (which has always been a government goal).

    3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      “that’s why full autos have special, heavier, chromed brrls…”

      You must be living under a rock.

      A lot of semi-auto rifles, those worth their salt, have hammer forged, chromelining in barrels. They are quite common, easy to find, and not machineguns. 99% of my rifle collection has those barrels and I have zero machine guns.

  12. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    My concern is always overreach. For example, will they just ban bump stocks, or any device that allows a semiautomatic to fire at a higher rate of speed, and so all sorts of triggers and so forth.

    I would disagree that a bump-fire constitutes a machine gun. A machine gun is defined by the mechanism, not the rate of fire. A bump-fire stock allows the weapon to continue to fire semiautomatic, just more quickly.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      It’s designed to be able to ban semi-autos through an executive fiat.

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        Yes it certainly is, they have wanted it since 94.

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          And the NRA is helping them, like they did in 1994.

          Wayne LaPierre is a fudd.

  13. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Wow… lots of fudds and sellouts in the comments here. I realize now that true defenders of liberty are in the minority.

    When the ATF decides that semi autos are machine guns, then you’ll understand, but by then it’ll be too late, and your precious NRA will support that too.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      they seek to find semis as autos through this regulation. We’re already here.

  14. avatar ironicatbest says:

    What does, alcohol ,tobacco , have to do with firearms or explosives? They are not vaguely related, two are physically and mentally addictive. It should be BATD-rugs, leave guns out of it, and eliminate the DEA Any president that remotely hints at infringing any Constitutional right should be impeached, as he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Clinton should have been fired for that Until they learn who they work for, they’ll do what they want. Talks cheap ,

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      ATF is Dirty Harry, always have been. They get the questionable regulatory jobs that other agencies don’t want to defend in court.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      BATFE It should have been a convenience store.

  15. avatar fiundagner says:

    CONSUMERS: 21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)? 22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices? 23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

    these are the only questions the ATF is asking and apparently the only “relaVent” put they seek

    it is quite possible I am reading too much into this, but does that mean they’re going to ignore any other comments? so if you tell them you do not support a ban on these devices does that mean they’re just going to ignore you?

    1. avatar J.T. says:

      I don’t care what they want. I am going to send a reminder of the definition of a machine gun and that a bump stock doesn’t fit it so they have no legal authority to ban them anyway. They can ignore it, but it will be on the record.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…so if you tell them you do not support a ban on these devices does that mean they’re just going to ignore you?”

      A million responses could be collected, all of them opposing re-definition, and there is no law or regulation that requires ATF to decide an issue based on majority opinion.

      So….

      Yes, they can simply ignore all of us.

  16. avatar Some guy says:

    The NRA, Snipershide, and Accuracy International all approve of this move.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Then they all deserve our scorn. They’re anti American gun grabbers and certainly no second amendment activists.

  17. avatar l2a3 says:

    So when do we cut off our fingers and thumbs? Is there going to be a law that limits the length of shoe laces and rubber bands? This is ATF stupid running amuck.

  18. avatar M1Lou says:

    But this won’t affect muh Garand right? Right?

    *Disclaimer-This post was made to make fun of people who think their old guns are safe because FUDD. I am a Garand owner also and half of my arsenal or collection that is at the bottom of a lake is milsurps.

  19. avatar MeRp says:

    Am I the only one who noticed that this isn’t a proposed rule change, but, rather, a proposal to propose a rule change?

    To me it looks like they were pressured into “re-evaluating” so they are doing it the long way; propose a proposal, get comment on that, then, if that commentary isn’t enough justification to shoot it down, propose a rule and get comment on that. Not only will it spread things out over time (so people have time to think about it rationally), it gives two chances for the public outrage to bring the whole idea to a grinding halt. Meanwhile, someone, somewhere, has to come up with some rando interpretation of the existing laws that somehow will classify bump stocks (which they seem to be laser targeting, as opposed to anything that allows you to “simulate full auto”) as full auto, despite explicit legal language that, essentially, excludes them.

    That said, if no one comments, they probably will ban them. So send comments. The rule that a proposal for is being proposed is idiotic AND definitely outside the scope of the law; it should eb shot down.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I’m pretty sure it’s just the cumbersome process of federal rule making.

  20. avatar ATF Institutional Fraud says:

    The Elephant in the Room …. ATF was never legally created , therefore has no jurisdiction.

    It is a twisted story ( By Design ) , ATF is an outgrowth of Prohibition. If NON-Lawyers can figure it out why is nobody challenging on these grounds ?
    http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html#bfi

    1. avatar Toni says:

      ah leagalese….. dont you love it…. NOT. that is the whole idea of leagalese to entrap and deceive and force consent where if done in plain language none would be given freely. in fact 98% of all modern legal systems are based on this corruption which says to me that most lawyers, judges, and more especially Bureaucrats need to be brought to trial under the original 13th amendment which baned all forms of slavery (of which this is one form, the banking system is another) and also under the banning under the original constitution of titles of nobility which the legal system still uses frequently

  21. avatar TomD in CO says:

    From https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-27717 : “Editorial Note: The Office of the Federal Register withdrew this document after it went on public inspection due to technical errors.”

  22. avatar DoomGuy says:

    Well the NRA is pushing this so you can say goodbye to every semi automatic from now on.

    And for the NRA sychophants who think I’m being ridiculous, I wonder what that worthless commie bastard Wayne lapierre will do for them when the ATF kicks in their door at 3:00 in the morning.

  23. avatar RV6 Driver says:

    An armed populist sure seems scared of an inept government agency… So how are these laws enforced? By the bump stock police? There’s a half billion guns in the US and a lot of fighting rifles and I don’t see many folks giving them up. There’s a lot of states between NY,NJ and CA…. Most states you can go out anytime and buy whatever you want… The Nics checks are sky high every month not to mention private sales. If you wanta be scared and beg your useless local politicians for your constitutional rights your forgetting about your safe full of guns and ammo cans……

  24. avatar DoomGuy says:

    And I hope all you NRA lemmings are glad trump will be a one term president once his ATF, FBI, and DOJ start banning semi autos by executive fiat.

    Fuck the NRA. Communist fudds the lot of them.

  25. avatar TSGTJoe says:

    My guess is that bumpstocks etc. will get banned because, to most folks, they are an awkward thing to defend and aren’t seen as part of a slippery slope to gun banning. The distinction between a machinegun ( multiple rounds per trigger squeeze) and a device which increases the speed of trigger squeezes will not be seen as relevant.

  26. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    “that’s why full autos have special, heavier, chromed brrls…”

    You must be living under a rock.

    A lot of semi-auto rifles, those worth their salt, have hammer forged, chromelining in barrels. They are quite common, easy to find, and not machineguns. 99% of my rifle collection has those barrels and I have zero machine guns.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email