Bump Stock Ban
(AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Previous Post
Next Post

The Washington Times‘ David Sherfinsky has found that the feds collected a grand total of about 1000 bump stocks when they were made illegal earlier this year. That’s out of an estimated 280,000 to 520,000 in circulation.

To be fair, many could have been turned into state and local authorities or destroyed by their owners. But it’s not likely. And the public’s compliance (or lack thereof) is a good indicator of what can be expected if the Democrats ever succeed in getting an “assault weapons” mandatory buyback (confiscation) bill signed into law.

“There’s a significant feeling of ‘will not comply’ with gun confiscation-type laws on one hand, and on the other hand quite honestly, most gun owners probably don’t know that you were supposed to turn them in or destroy them and so they’re just keeping them anyway,” [Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan] Gottlieb said.

“I’ve traveled around the country since this was put into effect, and I don’t know anybody that had one that turned one in,” he said.

Gun rights advocates suggested in the run-up to the March 26 deadline that owners hold on to the devices as legal challenges to the rule played out in the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court turned aside several of those challenges near the time the ban took effect.

The ban could be seen as something of a smaller-scale “trial run” for what the federal government would have to do under a mandatory ban and buyback of certain military-style, semi-automatic firearms along the lines of what Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke is advocating, said Robert Spitzer, a professor at SUNY Cortland.

“I think it does have some implications for that,” said Mr. Spitzer, who has written extensively on the politics of gun control. “On its face, it’s not clear how any kind of mandatory program would work.

– David Sherfinski in Bump stock ban’s flop a bad omen for Democrats’ gun buyback plan

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Non-compliance with any illogical PROHIBITION law is just a natural human response,. For Americans though, non-compliance is greatly amplified by our history and traditions of Freedom.

  2. A lot of ones owned by businesses were turned in if I am not mistaken. How ever that was not what they were looking for. They want you and me to lose our rights unless we get them through a government approved circus to acquire a firearm.

    I am starting to believe the inevitable future is being a Europeanized. Most people on the right give ground (or want restrictions on other rights instead) and most people on the left desire restrictions on our rights.

    • I get that, but I do not believe it is inevitable. We have a long history of bucking global movements. Also I’d point out that Europe has begun to see rebellion (Political, for now), against the left wing domination. Right and center right parties are gaining momentum across the continent. I don’t know if they’ll win, but it’s at least a beacon of light in a sea of darkness. It lets the left know that no victory is ever permanent. We will be back for more.

      • I’m not right wing or left wing. The right wing there wants brexit. I know people there who support it. By American standards they are far far left.

        They still are anti gun, anti property rights, and anti privacy. The only improvement I see is some people want freespeech and expression there again. Even that is wobbly. They still support things like universal health care. They are “right wing”. I hope they get brexit but I am not sure they will and the people I know who voted it are now unsure.

        Right wing means little. It’s Authoritarian or Libertarian. less government power in all areas is what I want. instead of shifting the overton window left or right we need to break the tradition thought of left vs right. It needs to be More government vs less government(Authoritarian vs Libertarian.

      • It IS inevitable unless we change the school system, the curricula taught in K-12, and teacher training. And fire a lot of teachers. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, after they discovered that just smoking dope and having fun wasn’t so fun, most of those socialist-inclined hippies went into teaching and teaching education in college. They have been teaching socialism – unnamed – to teachers for a long time. It has to change before we stop the slide into Europeanistic – that is, socialist – government.

    • Biatec,

      I am starting to believe the inevitable future is being a Europeanized.

      Sort of. All we have to do is look at the human experience (e.g. History) to project where our nation is most likely heading.

      And what does History tell us? Most people are quite meek and mild and will NOT fight back now matter how awful their government is. Sure, people will whine and complain — and that is about all. Thus, whoever is most ruthless will rise to power.

      Now here is the rub: even ruthless people are not stupid. They want as much riches as they can get. Once again History shows us that brutally crushing the populace means there are very little in terms of riches for the ruthless ruling class to hoard. Thus, a ruthless ruling class will allow limited “freedom” and “prosperity” for the working class simply because it is in the ruthless ruling class’ best interest.

      And what is the minimum level of “freedom” and “prosperity” which still maximizes the riches that the ruthless ruling class can hoard? Somewhere between today’s Western Europe and today’s China. THAT is where we are heading if We the People fail to stop the ruthless ruling class.

    • “I am starting to believe the inevitable future is being a Europeanized.”

      Unacceptable, full stop.

      The only way that happens is if *massive* gun confiscation happens, as in not allowing guns to be inherited. That’s an invite to Revolutionary War 2, ‘Electric Boogallo’…

  3. This should only be surprising to those who aren’t paying attention, deliberately or otherwise (i.e., antigunners and Fudds). What were the estimated compliance rates with laws like the NYSAFE Act and state-mandated bump stock bans? Around single digit percentages?

  4. I believe a small town in Texas expressed their intentions quite well to another Tyrannical Government….something along the line of “Come and Take it” ….

  5. I cut mine up and threw in the trash.

    The idea of putting it in a 6 gallon extra long bucket and burying it on state owned property never even crossed my mind.

    • And no metal detector can sense plastic.

      Have fun looking, boys!

  6. unenthusiastic eye roll accompanied by a tongue click is a hint at how requests for fingercuffing will go.

  7. ” “On its face, it’s not clear how any kind of mandatory program would work.”

    Let me help here: It’s NOT going to work! I hope that clarifies things.

  8. Good luck with that.start with the Gov’t I know Gov’t guys with armalite rifle s.ska a.r.s.

  9. Golly that’s some pretty poor figures for bumpstock “compliance”. Sorta like the war on drugs. Or everyone paying there “fair share” of taxes. Of none of us speeding. Or reporting income…I saw a bumpstock for sale at a LGS. I wondered what the fuss was all about. Stockup folks.

    • The gun-control movement is more about symbolism than it is about actual effects. Once coercive gun-control laws that reflect gun-control ideology are in place, advocates pretty quickly lose interest in serious enforcement. So long as they can see the laws on the books and so long as occasional visible acts of enforcement are carried out they’re happy.

  10. The bump stock ban’s problem is that the very agency that retroactively banned it had earlier given its inventors explicit written guidance that the item was legal.

    Then the item was not grandfathered and owners were ordered to turn them in or destroy them without compensation.

    The legal issue here has nothing to do with guns.

    It has to do with an uncompensated “taking” of property by the government.

    Many many bump stock owners would have turned them in in a second if they were compensated the $300 they had paid SlideFire for their injection molded piece of plastic.

    They’ve gotten their giggles and the stocks were collecting dust in a closet or box somewhere.
    $300 would be an easy way to get out of a toy that had run its course.

    But the fact that no compensation was offered after earlier explicit Governmental approval means it CLEARLY runs afoul of the 5A.

    And the ban will eventually fall because of this.

    • “The bump stock ban’s problem is that the very agency that retroactively banned it had earlier given its inventors explicit written guidance that the item was legal.”

      Not a problem at all. Agencies within the Executive can and do change their minds on what is/is not legal. A letter of opinion from such an agency is worth about the value of the office paper it’s printed on and the only opinion letter that matters is the most recent. This isn’t new, even for the ATF. The ATF was of the opinion that shouldering a braced pistol was “redesigning” the firearm before they were of the opinion that it’s not “redesigning” the firearm.

      The real issue is the administrative rewriting of a legal definition passed by Congress and signed into law by a POTUS. That completely undermines, and in fact negates, the rule of law.

      • And we should not forget that presidential orders, which is what initiated the bump-stock rule, are not the same as laws enacted by congress. They can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Laws cannot. I think Trump wisely used a presidential order to sidestep a potentially difficult 2nd Amendment issue.

        • Or stupidly did something that’s going to be weaponized against all of us by the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office.

          Look at Bush and Obama for your examples. Bush created the tyrant’s toolkit (aka the Patriot Act) and Obama weaponized it against all his opponents (i.e., most of America).

          If Trump’s executive order is allowed to stand, all hell is going to break loose when a progbot starts wielding the same power.

        • Ing:

          As I’ve said many times; I don’t read minds so I have no idea what Trump thinks he’s up to on this one. I can see it being a number of different things (though not at the same time).

          If his intent is what some think, to push things so far that the SCOTUS slaps back the administrative (“deep”) state then it’s a risky move. However without risk there is no reward.

          The events of the day constantly remind me that, in response to his plans being questioned, Julius Caesar supposedly remarked at one point “It’s only hubris if I lose”.

          Honestly the thing that drives me the most nuts about Trump isn’t Trump himself. It’s how everyone on both sides seems to think they can, in fact, read his mind.

        • True. Everybody seems to think they know exactly what Trump is up to.

          All I know is this:
          1. He’s done a *lot* of what he campaigned on, and in terms of policy and law much of it has been sorely needed.
          2. I still don’t like or trust him.
          3. The bump-stock ban by executive fiat is *not* an example of point #1. And it perfectly illustrates point #2. I don’t pretend to know what his true intent was with it; I just hope it doesn’t come back to bite us all in the ass.

      • You are missing the point. If they change their mind. Fine. But it then becomes their responsibility to compensate people for the “taking” of their property.

        The Trump ban does not do this.

        Thus its unConstitutional.

  11. ‘Shall not be infringed ‘has been around for a long time, and the “progressives” don’t understand it’s meaning. How long will ” I will not comply” have to go to be understood?

  12. Since the open defiance of federal law by sanctuary cities and states to protect criminals who’ve illegally entered or remained in the United States has been proven to have no criminal consequences, sanctuary status can be invoked in pro 2nd amendment jurisdictions as well to defy any future firearm ban.

  13. How can you legitimately report that Robert Francis “Beta-male” O’Rourke is a presidential candidate when he’s polling at less than 1%?

  14. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has become a target for Progressives and Liberals, who are determined to dismantle it. The Founders recognized the “right to keep and bear arms” as an inalienable right of self-defense to be protected by government rather than infringed or abridged by it. As Constitution signer John Dickinson affirmed, inalienable rights such as self-defense were rights “which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

    Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual.

    Numerous Founders affirmed the God-given right to self-defense and personal safety:

    The said Constitution should be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution” .

    The right . . . of bearing arms . . . is declared to be inherent in the people. Fisher Ames, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress.

    The advantage of being armed [is an advantage which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . . In the several kingdoms of Europe . . . the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison, U.S. President, Signer of the Constitution, a Framer of the Second Amendment in the first congress.

    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress.

    None of the founders words would indicate a compliance factor of unjust/un Constitutional law or agency edicts.

  15. Implicit in the use of the term “buyback” is that the buyer exchanges money in return for an article. With bump stocks, the feds simply demanded that a previously classified legal item of property be surrendered with no compensation whatsoever. Given the distinct differences between the bump stock seizure and any theoretical gun buyback, it’s impossible to infer any compliance rate to a buyback.

  16. Im not giving up anything anywhere. No way come and get it!!!!!!
    Which by the way would be NOTHING.

  17. It’s my belief that the modern Socialist Democrat Party (which now works against voters) will eventually sneak thru a “gun buyback” program and that this will trigger a (very short) civil war, which will re-institutionalize the basic civil rights that the modern Left is busy subverting. The socialists cannot enslave an armed public, which is why they are going after guns. The good news is that eliminating hundreds of rabid socialists will be good for the Earth’s climate! It’s a few hundred wanna be socialist dictators vs 300 million Americans. Ideally they could be trapped and exiled to the South Pole where the warming climate will provide ideal growing conditions. I suggest cages baited with MAGA hats.

  18. The problem is not too many guns. The problem is too many violent people with an evil hearts. Those with evil intent will always find a way to kill.

    And we citizens need a way to defend ourselves. The police will most likely never respond in time.

    The true goal of the left, not just confiscate our firearms, but all of our assets. They will do this to funds their socialist utopia. Which they cannot accomplish in an armed American citizenry.

    • “The police will most likely never respond in time.”

      If Parkland shows anything, it’s that the police may not respond at all. If the Justine Diamond case shows anything, it’s that if the cops do show up they will shoot you.

  19. Watch “Missouri Bill To Criminalize 2nd Amendment Infringement From the Federal Government

    States Constitutionally DO have rights to refuse Federal law enforcement from entering and acting in their states, and the Sheriff is empowered to refuse entry of ANY Federal officer he deems as acting unconstitutionally correct. Most people don’t know this about the power that Local Sheriffs have.


  20. To the Hillbillies and Jethro’s on this forum. Non-compliance will be a temporary situation among those individuals with the intelligence of cretins. We, the social democratic party of the United States will resolve the issue in short order. As soon as your president is impeached – which will be before December of this year, Kamala Harris will lead the way to social justice reform. This means, that non-compliance will be dealt with through forced confiscation. Whether by your local police, our military, or by UN troops if requested by President Harris. We, the POC, our immigrant friends, and the indigenous peoples of this country will unite with ANTIFA, BLM, LBGT, to form a task force that will dig up every last gun and gun component in this country.

    You Hillbillies and Jethro’s are not in control of this country. We are. We have a massive plan to deal with all white racist/supremacists who stand in our way. We all vote. We all support each other. We understand the politics of this country. You, do not vote, do not support one another and have no understanding of politics. In 2021 we will wipe the slate clean. We will rewrite the constitution. All those who do not follow our lead will be deported. The media is ours, the corporations are behind us. Remember, December is doomsday for Y’all. Better leave your home in the Appalachians ASAP.

  21. RW Arms in Dallas,TX turned in 60,000 BFS to the ATF. That’s just one manufactures left over inventory. The “Grand Total of 1000 turned in” number is a tad low! However, there’s a bigger point that hasn’t surfaced yet:

    When the Feds/DOJ wrote the BFD, they did so knowing full well that “WE THE PEOPLE” can and will resist. Why would the Feds go through the BFD hoopla AND SPECIFICALLY NOT TRACK COMPLIANCE? Come on, the feds track everything the put their fingers into, so why: Didn’t they mandate mandatory turn in? It’s not like the Gov couldn’t cough up the funds to collect, track and destroy BFDs. Feds knew basic production numbers, subtract turn ins and presto: a data point on “Compliance”! That extremely low percentage for compliance would not only be laughable, it would be a black eye; telling the World that Citizens stand behind “Shall not be infringed”. The presumption that the vast majority were neither turned in nor destroyed by the owners is probably correct. Feds also knew from the start that they couldn’t mass enforce the BFD Ban. I firmly believe that the Feds knew damn well that would be the case. So the Feds added the “Option” that current owners could appropriately destroy their own BFDs in order to prevent their embarrassment on non-compliant nombers in the hundred thousands. No person in their right mind would conclude that only a small 1-2% would dare violate the tyrannical decree. The Feds will just suck it up, knowing as everyone in the intelligent firearms community does that this BFD Paper Tiger is a FAILURE. While the Feds/DOJ/AFT will gloat over the one or two BFD busts they will claim under the ” Machinegun” headline, it will never wipe the egg of their faces.

    It will be for the exact same rationale that there will never be a outright total ban or confiscation of MSRs/AWs/mags. If the Feds can comprehend this “lesson learned” they won’t push a NFA or other Registration scheme either. Why would a person comply with registration when it only provides a tool for future confiscation? It forces a “Showdown” between the Gov Decree and firearm owners noncompliance. Gov has no desire to loose again.

  22. Regarding the possibility, might probability be more likely, of non-compliance the following is I submit, worth at the very least, a passing thought, actually a whole hell of a lot more than merely a passing thought. Think back to Prohibition, and how well that bit of foolishness worked, or didn’t work.

  23. Funny how I can be trusted to carry a M249 Saw in the USMC but I can’t be trusted to own a bumpstock? I know this might melt a few snowflakes but I’m tired of wait. Hammer up and start stacking doors Socialist deserve double tapped

  24. Once the hangings start they will learn not to ban god given rights!

    They forgot who is in charge We the people grant privileges to Gov that can be revoked!

  25. There were virtually none turned in to BATF because there was virtually no reason to do so.
    Do I want them to know I ever had it?
    “Hi, my name is Fedup, and I like to play with full auto…”

    The only reason I can think of for doing so is if I want documentation when I sue them for taking it from me.

    Otherwise, if I don’t want to be a felon, toss it in the recycling bin.
    If somebody else sees it and wants to be a felon, hey, I’m glad I saved him from having to buy it.

  26. Now just how many people are going to be stupid enough to turn in their guns? I’m betting there’s going to be thousands that say “Hell no!”

  27. I hope everyone refuses to comply with any new gun control legislation, I myself have never owned a bumpstock, but if I did, I’ll be damned if I would hand it over to the government.

  28. If its against the law then your breaking the law. The injustice of the law broken depends on what law it is your breaking. In this case its a violation of american citizens second ammendment. I will share my story of non compliance while sitting next to the prostitute and weed farmer.

  29. Bump Fire is a technique, the Bump Stock just lowers the learning curve and makes it easier to Bump Fire. None of my AR’s is/was Bump Stock equipped, as it’s a monumental waste of ammo IMO. Should I or any other legal gun owner be able to buy one? Yes they should. ATF’s rule change really wasn’t theirs to enact. It’ll be a couple of years, but SCOTUS will have to make a decision on the issue at some point. The ATF’s asking for comments either for or against the ban, was smoke and mirrors. They were intent on changing the ruling regardless of the Nay comments.

  30. Benjamin Franklin said “When the government comes for your guns, give it to them, ammunition first”.

Comments are closed.