List of States and Cities That Ban/Want to Ban Bump Fire Stocks. Is Your State on This List?

Bump fire stock (courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“States and municipalities nationwide are attempting to ban bump stocks — devices used to make rifles fire more rapidly,” washingtonpost.com reports, “after Congress failed to act on bipartisan resolve to restrict them following their use in a Las Vegas massacre last year.” Failed, I tell you! Failed! An outcome aided and abetted by the NRA, who deferred to . . .

the ATF’s ” jack-booted government thugs” (Wayne LaPierre’s words), asking the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (and Really Big Fires) to add the plastic bits to the National Firearms Act, making them highly restricted items, opening the door to other bans (more on that later today).

At least 15 states [ED: 16] are considering laws that would ban bump stocks, as is Denver. Columbia, S.C., barred them last year. The devices already are illegal in California, and some other states with bump stock restrictions are trying to tighten them.

They include New Jersey, where, in one of his last acts in office, former Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Monday completely barred bump stocks from the state. Though the use of bump stocks already had been illegal in New Jersey, the new law prohibits possessing or selling them. Owners have 90 days to voluntarily surrender their bump stocks to law enforcement, and retailers must turn them in within 30 days.

Bump fire stock bans in place or about to take effect:

Massachusetts
New Jersey
Columbia, S.C.

States with a proposed bill banning bump fire stocks:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Maine
Missouri
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Washington

Cities moving to ban bump fire stocks:

Denver, Colorado

comments

  1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Missouri are the only surprises/disappointments on the list. Although, these states are so far just considering a ban. It might not go anywhere.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      The Demoncrats in Missouri wanted to be the last state in the country without ‘civilian’ concealed carry.
      They almost succeeded.
      It’s not surprising that a Kansas City Demoncrat (Richard Brown) wants to ban a sliding piece of plastic.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      NM isn’t as much of a surprise as you’d think. Santa Fe (state capital) is kinda like Santa Cruz (CA) in the desert.

      This sort of thing happens pretty much every legislative session, but as this is a budget session the governor has to invite the bill to be heard. I’m going to write to her requesting she not. Writing my rep will be useless, as she’s a bought-and-paid-for Bloomberger D.

    3. avatar GunDoc says:

      Something tells me with Obamagate ready to burst wide open, the Leftists won’t really be in a position to do much of anything.

      Kind of hard to pass legislation…from jail.

      #releasethememo

  2. avatar Roger J says:

    Where is Illinois?

    1. avatar Rick Hess says:

      Last time I looked, right next to MO. 8^)

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      Right? Illinois gun grabbers never seen a gun control bill they didn’t like. I’m surprised to see Illinois missing.

  3. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Pants on head retardation. Do these “politicians” believe that they are a law unto themselves?That God himself has decreed that they shall go fourth and rule man by “getting things done” and “acting where others have not”, and showing bravery by “standing up to the NRA”! To dominate their fellow man by fiat and referendum, shaping society to fit their personal view of liberal values and socialist pursuits?

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      “A law unto themselves”?
      Have no doubt, some do. The rest are simply being politicians. The first lesson a civics teacher of mine beat into our heads in school: “the one overriding goal of every politician is to get reeelected.”
      That isn’t cynicism, it just an acknowledgement of reality. These politicians who are pushing this at a state and municipal level probably are doing so knowing full well that their laws are unconstitutional and will be overturned.
      It doesn’t matter.
      There are no penalties to suffer when a politician knowingly votes for or implements an unconstitutional law. They get to pass it, claim credit for it, reap the benefits of their actions with the weak-minded sheep who demanded the law, get reelected by those same sheep, and have the law thrown out by the courts with no consequences to the politicians whatsoever.
      So why not ban a piece of plastic? From the politicians perspective (rule #1 Get Reelected), what could it hurt?
      🤠

  4. avatar Docduracoat says:

    You will note that my state of Florida is not on the list
    We are very gun friendly here.
    I love shooting with both my bumpfire stock and Snapfire trigger bumpfire device!
    Everyone should comment on the proposed rules ATF is considering about regulating bumpfire stocks
    Go to http://www.regulations.gov
    The docket number for the bumpfire regulations is 2017R-22
    Please read the “rules for making effective comments” that you will find there
    They do ask you to give your name and address on the comment form
    If you are paranoid, just say you don’t own any bumpfire stocks, but have shot them at the range
    They want consumers to comment on where do you see them for sale, what is the price, and what purposes are they used
    Then say something like thousands of law abiding citizens enjoy shooting these for recreation and only once were they used in a crime
    You can also find links at Ammoland.com m14.com and AR15.com to make comments against the proposed regulations

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Very gun friendly, until your Florida weight clothing lets your handgun become visible?

      1. avatar JD says:

        Also very gun friendly if you consider asking permission and paying a tax to bear arms is friendly or constitutional. Sounds a lot like a poll tax to me. Seeing as unconstitutional laws are void from conception though I suspect many people ignore the ccw permission slip and carry anyway.

    2. avatar 2truth4liberty says:

      I submitted a comment many weeks ago, but they never publicly displayed it yet.
      It was assigned comment # 1k2-92t7-2r77
      Ir was submitted as follows:

      =============================

      COMMENT FOR
      Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
      Docket No. 2017R-22
      AG Order No. 4132-2018
      Bump-Stock-Type Devices

      1. Knee-jerk reaction is the worst method for creating of modifying rules of law.
      These devices are gun safety devices as they simply allow a “firing technique” to allow for more accurate targeting.

      See example of bump fire technique performed WITHOUT ANY BUMP STOCK DEVICE which fires one round for every pull of the trigger at:

      2. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a selfacting 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.”

      This claim is false.
      The regulating mechanism is “manual” pressure applied by the used. That manually applied pressure is neither selfacting nor self-regulating. And “without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter” is false in that the shooter’s finger “physically manipulates the trigger for each round fired”.

      3. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger”.

      This is either false of vague.
      First, that a “pull” is affected by recoil energy absorbed into a person’s body does not mean that there is not one pull for every round fired.
      See example of bump fire technique performed WITHOUT ANY BUMP STOCK DEVICE which fires one round for every pull of the trigger at:

      Second, the term “continuous” firing cycle is vague as “manual” movement of a finger can be “continuous”. A person can continuously manually move their finger forward and backward. In fact this describes normal firing of multiple rounds from a typical “semi-automatic” weapon.
      ATF has previously used the term “automatic” firing cycle.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13445, “ATF concluded in Ruling 2006–2 that devices exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms are machineguns if, “when activated by a single pull of the trigger, [such devices] initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.”

      The above demonstrates that the terms “automatic” and “continuous” are used interchangeably even though they are not synonymous.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, ‘initiate a continuous firing cycle’
      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13446, ‘initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle’

      Movement of a finger can be “continuous” through manual movement of the finger. That does not make the movement “automatic”.

      4. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”

      Presumably the regulations intended use of “automatic fire” is synonymous with its use of “automatic firing cycle”. Regardless, this claim is false. There is nothing “automatic” about applying “manual” pressure. (See also point 3 above)

      5. The proposed regulation would be impermissibly vague as “automatic firing cycle” would encompasses “manually” applied pressure. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13444, noting that it requires “the shooter’s maintenance of pressure”. When something is required of the shooter, it is not automatic.

      True machine guns require nothing from the shooter after the trigger is pulled. Nothing required from the shooter is what “automatically” means in the GCA.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13444, “The GCA defines ‘‘machinegun’’ by
      referring to the NFA definition,2 which includes ‘‘any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’’ 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).”

      6. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13454, “As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the criminal
      use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting incident.”

      First, there is no reason to believe that criminals will not retain bump stock devices or be able to obtain them after the proposed change.
      Usable bump stock devices can be printed on a 3D printer if a criminal wanted to use one.

      Second, there is no solid(verified through forensics) evidence that any of these devices were “actually used” in the claimed incident.
      There is some forensic audio evidence that suggests that there were either multiple shooters at that incident or else an audio recording of multiple shooters was played back on a sound system. There is also forensic audio evidence that suggest real machineguns were used.

      7. See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13454, “No other feasible alternatives were identified, and thus none were considered.”

      The agency should not rely solely upon the public to submit feasible alternatives and if the agency could not identify the feasible alternative of exempting devices manufactured prior to enactment of the rule, then it is plainly incompetent (or corrupt) as that is the logical alternative to prevent the regulation from being both an ex post facto enactment and a constitutionally impermissible regulatory taking for lack of due process and lack of providing just compensation.

      8. When results/effects of past application of a regulation’s classifications (i.e., definitions affecting what constitutes a violation of the regulation) are changed based on reclassification through a change to definitions, or interpretation, affecting what constitutes a violation of the regulation, then that is an ex post facto regulation which is violative of the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws.

      9. The regulation constitutes a regulatory taking of property without any due process for providing just compensation.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13442, “current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

      See also Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13453, “This proposed rule would require the
      destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices.”

      This effect of the regulation constitutes a regulatory taking. The logic is unmistakable. For example, what if – Some were found to be using outbuildings in residential areas as sex slave composts and a regulation was enacted to make all “outbuildings in residential areas” illegal and that classification(i.e., “outbuildings”) was interpreted so that one room log cabins were not considered to be outbuildings. Then, many people build/obtain one room log cabins to use as their homes. Then someone used a one room log cabin as a compost for sex slaves so it was proposed to change the interpretation or the classification of outbuildings to now include one room log cabins. If that reclassification did not also exempt all one room log cabins existing prior to the reclassification (that is, it applied retroactively to such property), then that would be not only an ex post facto law but a regulatory taking. Similarly, had the 1986 machinegun regulation not exempted all pre-enactment machineguns, that would have been ex post facto and a regulatory taking.

      10. The regulations are an impermissible infringement upon the Second Amendment right of responsible law abiding citizens. Bump stock equipped arms are protected under the Second Amendment because, even based on the agencies own proposal, hundreds of thousands of them are in common use for lawful purposes including self defense. I, personally, use a bump stock device attached to a semi-automatic weapon for self defense in my home.

      The question for Second Amendment protection is not “have any of that type of arm been used for unlawful purposes?” but rather “are those type of arms in common use for lawful purposes?” If it were otherwise, then all handguns could be banned (and nearly every other type of arms as well).

      Based on the regulations summary and current Supreme Court precedent, bump stock devices are protected by the Second Amendment.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13451, “Low estimate […] 280,000”.

      See Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 at page 13450, “Commenters noted a variety of purposes for which bump-stock-type devices have been advertised and used, including for recreation and fun, assisting persons with mobility issues in firing quickly, self-defense, killing invasive pig species, and target practice”.

      See opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in FRIEDMAN v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf (“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.”)

      The regulation is not narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive of a fundamental right. See “exempting devices manufactured prior to enactment of the rule” in point 6 above as a less restrictive means.

      11. Upon a showing that owners of machineguns commonly use them for lawful purposes, it would have to be concluded that even actual machineguns are protected by the Second Amendment today. Current restrictions requires current justifications. That is, while machineguns may not have been in common use for lawful purposes at the time that the NFA(1934) or the GCA(1968) even the FOPA(1986), was enacted, if they are in common use for lawful purposes “today”, then they are protected by the Second Amendment.
      A restriction was valid in the past does not mean it is still valid today. That is, a restriction that “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 ,203 (2009).

      =============================
      END

      1. avatar 2truth4liberty says:

        CORRECTION
        It is now posted. See it here:
        http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-15582

        1. avatar Michael says:

          Thank you for this highly intelligent and extremely valuable comment. As a Army veteran and a self deemed patriot I feel it is my duty as a citizen to not only support and defend our Constitution but the citizens in my nearby proximity. I believe the second ammendment guarantees my right to own/posses/use any weapon I deem necessary to defend my countrymen against a tyrannical over reaching government. This cannot be accomplished with the use of a pellet gun. I stand for extremely harsh punishment for criminals involved in these mass shootings and don’t expect my government to punish fellow patriots for the actions of the criminal. I feel your comment is a perfect interpretation of the law and can be used in court to prove innocence against any banned weapon charges. I intend to repost your comment everywhere possible as your words here deserve to be heard. God bless and keep American rights legal.

  5. avatar somethingclever says:

    The Columbia, SC ban is on the use within city limits, not on possession. It is already illegal to discharge any firearm within city limits, so it’s really irrelevant grandstanding.

    1. avatar ThePontificator says:

      Columbia’s ban on the use of bump fire stocks and triggers cranks was immediately challenged by local attorney Mark Schnee. Waiting for courts to follow through.

      Schnee won a case last year against the city of Columbia for enacting a ban on all firearms within an extended distance of the statehouse.

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    F em all, in the goat a_ _.

  7. avatar Warlocc says:

    What I want to know is how these laws are legal without offering refunds to owners and businesses that have already paid for them.

    1. avatar Lcsw says:

      They don’t care. In NJ it’s either throw it away or face penalties so severe you would’ve thought you beat and robbed an old lady. No “just” compensation.

    2. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      What I find even more interesting is that all of this has occurred from ONE KNOWN CRIME involving a “bump stock.” I’ve been searching for the last month trying to find documentation of another crime involving the use of a “bump stock,” and I have yet to come across anything.

      I’ve asked people if they knew what a “bump stock” was six months ago before the Vegas shooting, and everyone I’ve talked to that was not a “gun guy” said, “No.” Think if we had done this with the automobile industry. The first time a crime is committed with a vehicle over 50-horsepower and an “automatic” transmission, we must “ban it!” Lump in all non-criminal automobile accidents, and . . .

      The just goes to show that it is not about making people “safe,” “stopping crime,” or “saving just one child.” It is just about trampling on the constitutional rights of Americans.

  8. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I’d suggest watching and sharing this video if you want to learn how dangerous the proposed ATF ban really is to the 2nd Amendment. This if NOT fear mongering.
    https://youtu.be/IMw0g7m8IVE
    Follow the link to comment to the ATF in opposition. Clock runs out on January 25th

  9. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Don’t think it will be much longer until a group of Patriots start taking the tyrants out (Trump keeps winning will delay this)

    I’m ready and willing to do my part, are you?

  10. avatar PA Gun Owner says:

    Pretty confident nothing attacking bump stocks will pass in PA, but pretty disappointed that time is being wasted on such nonsense.

  11. avatar Khen710 says:

    I am thankful to live in Florida. This is a very gun friendly state, we have the best of both worlds down here because we are part of “the south” and have everything that comes with that (mostly GOP reps, governor, etc) but we also kill it in the tourism industry and generate a lot of money from that. The good thing is that tourism is really only prevalent on the coasts, specifically south Florida. Then you have everyone else in the middle of state and near, but not on, the coasts like me and its actually a ton of farmland and nature preserves all over the state. It’s like night and day driving from let’s say, Palm Beach, out to Orlando and through the middle of the state. Most people don’t realize how much agriculture and wide open country we have in FL. Now if they would only open up “public lands” to us to go shooting like they do out west and we would be set. There are a ton of great outdoor ranges though.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Added.

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    As I sit here outside Santa Fe prepairing to wire in a few light ballasts, I give the chances that NM bans bump stocks a “snowball’s chance in hell”.

    NM’s non-professional legislature has trouble passing budgets and other necessary bills. I doubt they’ll even have the time to consider this proposal.

  13. avatar anonymoose says:

    California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have already effectively outlawed bumpstocks by having salt waffle bans that ban pistol grips, they’re just too stupid too figure out that making something “double-illegal” doesn’t actually make it more illegal-er.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Meanwhile, I can’t write in proper English.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Salt waffles might be interesting, are they like salt water taffey? Personally I prefer butter and real maple syrup….

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          “Salt waffle” is a term I use to describe “assault weapons” regulated by laws, since any weapon (including body parts) used in an assault is an actual “assault weapon.” When ((they)) use a contrived BS term I like to use a more whimsical, nonsensical term in its place. I dislike the term “MSR” because abbreviations such as that can have several meanings, just like the old arfcommer use of “EBR” (Evil Black Rifle) to refer to AR- and AK-style guns.

    2. avatar Thomas S. says:

      Exactly, California has no need to propose a bill to ban bump fire stocks, they are illegal already. In California they are considered a “multi-burst trigger activator”

    3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Um Maryland has no law banning pistol grips so stop spewing BS about it.

      Also only certain “salt weapons” are banned in MD. You can still buy AR’s and AK’s.

      The only AR’s that are affected are 5.56 pencil/goverment barrels. HBAR’s in 5.56 are fine, any other caliber is fine. With all the evil features as well.

      The only AK’s banned in MD are 7.62×39 rifles. 5.45 and 5.56 still legal cash and carry with all the folding stocks and bayonet lugs you want. Imported, sporter 7.62×39 AK’s still legal. AK pistols in any caliber still legal.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        That still sounds pretty bad to me, and if you can’t have gubmint-profile ARs that’s basically a ban on 98% of the AR15 market. Also, how in the hell can they just outright ban 7.62×39 rifles? Can you buy an AR15 in 7.62×39?

  14. avatar Diksum says:

    Virginia is considering such a bill.

  15. avatar MDH says:

    The increasingly blue and increasingly poor state in which I currently reside is on the list — but it’s not *my* state, and never has been.

    Will be heading for Texas very soon, with barely a rearward glance.

  16. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    The Congress currently has at least two bills taking silencers of the NFA, two for national concealed carry, one overturning every “assault weapons” ban on rifles, and a bill for a budget. None of those things are happening. The budget thing will be done eventually. The others, I ain’t holden’ my breath.

  17. avatar William West says:

    Well state of Missouri you can get a tax stamp to own suppressors and silencers. I think for bump stocks they should put serial numbers on them just like a gun get a special tax stamp. And have to do a nics background. To have a bump stock

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