As we reported earlier, the rule making comment period for the ATF’s proposed re-regulation of bump fire stocks is open. That means if you want to toss in your two cents as to why you think that the already-deemed-legal accessories shouldn’t be arbitrarily re-classified and regulated like machine guns, you have the opportunity to do just that.
TTAG reader John Dingell III took the time to carefully compose his thoughts and give the ATF a good-sized piece of his mind. In fact, he had to enter the comments below in two segments, as the ATF’s system limits commenters to 5000 characters at a time.
Here’s what he wrote:
Agency:Â Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Bureau (ATF)
Document Type:Â Rulemaking
Title:Â Bump-Stock Type Device
Document ID:Â ATF-2018-0002-0001Comment:
The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposed ‘Bump-Stock Type Devices’ rule printed on pages 13,442 et seq. in the Federal Register on March 29, 2018 is an illegal use of Executive Branch authority and should be withdrawn. This proposed rule is further identified by Federal Register Number 2018-06292 and RIN 1140-AA52.Bump-stock type devices only increase rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm in certain specific firing positions, when the semiautomatic firearm is held in a very specific fashion, under circumstances which allow for a very particular motion of the semiautomatic firearm. The semiautomatic firearm must be shouldered and held with two hands for there to be any increase in the rate of fire. A rate of fire increase is only achieved by a complicated interaction among the shooter’s shoulder, trigger hand, and other hand. The semiautomatic firearm must be free to oscillate fore and aft to increase the rate of fire. When any one of these three circumstances does not exist, there is no increase in the rate of fire.
The bump stock firing sequence is not automatic. Rather it is a series of coordinated, manual motions performed by the shooter, not the bump-stock type device or the semiautomatic firearm so fitted. The trigger of a semiautomatic firearm in a bump-stock type device is being repeatedly actuated, functioned, pulled (take your pick) by the non trigger hand of the shooter pushing the firearm forward. That actuation, function, pull can and often does occur entirely independent of recoil. Recoil is incidental to the firing sequence of a bump-stock type device equipped semiautomatic firearm, not intrinsic.
The shooter can position a trigger finger on the bump-stock type device flange adjacent to the semiautomatic firearm trigger with the firearm at its rear position in the bump-stock type device, then use the non trigger hand to push the firearm forward in the bump-stock type device to fire a single round. At any time interval chosen by the shooter, the shooter can again push the firearm forward in the bump-stock type device with the non trigger hand to fire another single round. This is not “self actuating”. It is manual, external actuation. The rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm in a bump-stock type device is totally dependent upon the actions of a shooter – the manual actions of the shooter.
True machine guns have identical rates of fire in all shooting positions, even when held and operated one handed. The shooter’s actions cannot affect the rate of fire of a machine gun, except to initiate firing and terminate firing. True machine guns do not require freedom to oscillate fore and aft to increase their rate of fire. The rate of fire of a machine gun is intrinsic to the weapon and completely independent of the shooter’s manual dexterity, the firing position, the number of hands holding the firearm, and any degree of freedom of motion.
The rate of fire of true machine guns is completely independent of the human element. Bump stocks do not create the intrinsic, human independent rate of fire property of a machine gun. You have no factual basis to claim that any element of the function of a bump-stock type device equipped semiautomatic firearm is automatic.
Bump stocks, as presently produced, actually impede firing rate in those shooting positions where the firearm is not shouldered, by partially masking the trigger with the flange adjacent to the semiautomatic firearm trigger, especially when the firearm at its rear position in the bump-stock type device. Bump stocks do not increase the rate of fire when the semiautomatic firearm is operated with only one hand – even when shouldered. The human element is indispensable to any firing rate increase achieved with a bump stock.
A bump stock is no more a machine gun than a human trigger finger, or the non trigger hand. Does BATFE propose to prohibit human trigger fingers or hands as machine guns next? Or prohibit the firing of semiautomatic firearms from the shoulder? Or prohibit the firing of semiautomatic firearms with two hands? Or require spatial fixation of semiautomatic rifles?
The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposed ‘Bump-Stock Type Devices’ rule printed on pages 13,442 et seq. in the Federal Register on March 29, 2018 is an illegal use of Executive Branch authority and should be withdrawn. This proposed rule is further identified by Federal Register Number 2018-06292 and RIN 1140-AA52.
The cost analysis in ATF 2018-0002-0001 does not consider the effect of bump-stock-type devices on ammunition consumption. If bump-stock-type devices actually increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms, then it stands to reason that they create much higher demand for ammunition. Owners of these devices will shoot more cartridges per hour of time devoted to shooting and have to purchase many more cartridges. Yet the cost analysis of this regulation does not consider ammunition sales at all, artificially concealing a major opportunity cost penalty imposed upon ammunition manufacturers and their supply chains – both upstream and downstream.
The cost analysis in ATF 2018-0002-0001 also does not consider the effect of banning further production of bump-stock-type devices on the capital equipment and tooling used by the manufacturers of those devices. Or any of the other termination costs imposed upon the manufacturers of these devices. Capital equipment was acquired to produce these devices far into the future and will become stranded should this proposed rule be implemented. Most of this capital equipment and tooling is unique to the manufacture of these devices and cannot be repurposed. There will also be costs incurred to scrap this capital equipment and tooling which will exceed the scrap metal sales revenue.
You are required to consider all costs before promulgating any new regulation under the Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs issued by President Trump on January 30, 2017. You have not done this, and your omissions are significant. The U.S. civilian small arms ammunition market has exceeded $ 1 billion in revenue every year during the past decade and substantial taxes are collected on ammunition sales which support conservation and a host of other government functions. Semiautomatic firearms suitable for use with bump stocks fire cartridges at the upper end of the ammunition cost spectrum. The capital equipment and tooling used by the manufacturers of those devices must have cost millions of dollars, much of which is undepreciated. Your cost analysis within ATF 2018-0002-0001 is completely inadequate.
John R. Spencer, the BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch chief in 2010, wrote on June 7th of that year [BATFE Document 903050:MMK 3311/2010-434] that a “bump-fire stock” submitted by Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. had no “functioning mechanical parts or springs” that made it perform like an NFA firearm. He therefore found “ that the “bump-stock” is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”
You cannot now demand “the destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices” or “turning the devices in to the nearest ATF office” without compensation. Those bump stocks were created and purchased based upon the official assurance of John R. Spencer that they were legal under 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479. There has been no change in 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479 to justify a reinterpretation of the legality of bump-stock type devices.
The last clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires “just compensation” be paid if private property is taken: “…..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This rule takes private property – bump-stock-type devices – for the alleged public purpose (a use) of reducing crime. Forced destruction of private property is a taking, and all the more odious since owners of that property were assured of the legality of that property by your designated authority prior to acquiring it. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment has always applied to U.S. Government actions and you have no authority to abrogate any section of the U.S. Constitution by fiat.
You must withdraw your proposed ‘Bump-Stock Type Devices’ rule.
If you’d like to comment as well, you can do so here.
Really doesnt matter to me. Bought 1 a few years ago, had some fun with it, then put it away. Cant hit much beyond 50 yards unless goal is to spray and pray. Even if made illegal, a string or rubber band will do the same thing.
Honesty stuff like this is the problem.
As long as Trump sits in the White House gun owners will sit back and do nothing to defend their rights. like yourself !!! They think he has their best interests at heart and he will never sign anything anti-gun despite the fact his administration has ordered the ATF to find a way to redefine semi-auto’s so they can ban “rate increasing devices.” which will later will come back to bite us when an AntiGun administration comes to power. Gun owners truly are their own worst enemy !!
I remember having arguments with other gun owners about the likelihood of the ’94 AWB passing. Many said, “Oh they can’t do that people will revolt.” Well, Clinton did do it and no one did squat. It was all lip service and apathy, just like now.
So as you sit there and do nothing Bloomberg is organizing and knowing that you will do nothing so he can continue to pass his Anti Gun agenda. !!!
You said it. As the pendulum swings…
First they came for the bumpstocks…
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
If you don’t care because you don’t think it impacts you, think again. We know the left’s agenda isn’t just bump stocks, but all guns not in the hands of the government.
It truly saddens me that you think this way.
It doesn’t matter to you because you’re a short sighted idiot. Eventually they’ll come for your guns too, you Fudd.
So you use a bump stock for a little bit, can’t hit anything with it, and that’s enough for you to say that you’re proficient enough to make a decision as to its efficacy.
I swear that gun owners can be so short sighted sometimes.
Well done, Mr Dingell.
F the ATF! Commie bastards…
They aren’t commies…. they are government apparatchiks trying to please their political masters. They are the “outer party” if you will…. Where before they thought he was pro 2nd ammendment (like everybody else thought he was), now they know DT is anti-gun. You’ll see them go full court press in favor of gun control on the “gray issues”. Look forward to having arm braces reclassed as ifle stocks and pistols reclassed as SBR’s. The Ministry of Truth can change the meaning of anything and make all laws obsolete.
If anyone actually thinks someone at AT and really big explosions bothered to even read one word of this. Or any comments sent them. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
They have their collective small minds made up already.
All any of this is going to do is tie up courts and make a hell of a lot of maybe temporary felons.
As I don’t own a bump stock. If I did. No way in hell would I give it up or anything else they may deem in the future banned. If I owned it. Not without 100% compensation at the least.
Till whenever they can ban all the fingers, rubber bands and belt loops they wish to.
Banning bump stocks is the dog chasing its tail. It wont accomplish anything.
I agree. It’s way too long and too “complicated” to expect them to actually read it. We’re not filing amicus briefs to the Supreme Court here. Trying to explain in great detail how they’re wrong and violating the law is pointless. At best they’re going to sort the comments into pro & con piles and examine the respective numbers. A few simple sentences telling them that you don’t support the rule change will do the same thing.
Stereodude, pretty much everything you think about how the comments are screened and used is wrong. See Adam Kraut’s video on this subject. Unique and detailed submissions matter, both in how the ATF counts them and how things play out later when it comes to filing lawsuits against the rule change.
Agreed.. Stereodude you are wrong concerning how the ATF will or rather “HAS” to handle submitted comments. Unless the comments contain foul or offensive language, they ALL have to be read! Sitting back and doing nothing will assure the ATF follows through with this BS! Mr. Dingell my hat’s off to you sir for submitting the best response I’ve read so far!
I didn’t say to do nothing. By all means comment away. I simply said pretending to play lawyer and writing a long winded diatribe accomplishes nothing.
But if you think they’re going to follow the rules because they “have to” you haven’t been paying attention to how they actually operate. They’re also required to get rid of two regulations for each new one they impose according to Executive Order 13771. How’s that working out?
Where’s this video at? Attempts to find it via Google were not fruitful.
The whole Hillary Email Scandal, the uranium scandal, the classified materials on Weiner’s computer scandal, the Russian Collusion investigation and the Trump Dossier scandal, the whole Comey thing, Attorney/Client privilege thing …. it all shows that they will play by the rules. Oh yeah forgot about “Shall not be infringed”. Got it.
I probably would not buy one but that really isn’t the issue. It is a bolt on accessory part, so what do they decide is next improved sights, better triggers or recoil pads. Do not laugh, California original wording in one law they tried to pass could have made any or all illegal, as it stated any modification that allowed increase rate of fire would be illegal. Think of all the possibilities
I reckon California would even ban Jerry Miculek. hehe
Florida’s bump stock ban says that any accessory, or kit, or add on that increases the rate of fire is a bump stock. Including things that aren’t actually bump stocks. It only bans bump stocks, but allows for anything to be defined as a bump stock, even if the device is neither a stock nor used for bump firing.
The ATF ban is stupid as well. People bought bump stocks in good faith because the ATF said it was legal. The purpose of bump stocks was clear from the beginning, much more so than pistol arm braces that have the little arm loop and strap that no one uses as “intended.”
Not one more rule.
Not one more law.
Not one more inch.
You want to take something from the citizens that exercise their constitutional rights, give us something in return. Not “monetary compensation”.
Give us some of our rights back, before we have to take them back.
I think bump stocks are stupid noise makers. That said, I appreciate the comments and will copy and paste to ATF simply and only because we need to stick together as gun owners unless we want to be ripped to shreds one little piece at a time.
https://survivalblog.com/slippery-slope-proposed-atf-rule-redefining-machinegun/
42 separate points of failure
A heroic and monsterous effort by John Dingell III (why is that name familiar?). Congrats for actually “doing something”, and quite well.
POTG should copy this Johh’s submission (by your leave, John) and submit, by the hundreds.
The reason politicians and bureaucrats get such a bad rap is….well,….they deserve it.
An agency ruling can be overcome a number of ways. Congressional legislation is another matter entirely. That said, there is already a bill in both houses that essentially take the issue out of the hands of a mere executive agency. Indeed, one can conclude from the wording that the intent is to ban/confiscate all semi-auto guns. (“confiscation” can be effectively done by making possession illegal, because using a banned weapon can get you jailed, effectively removing the benefit of a gun).
The president wants to “get rid” of bump stocks. Whether by executive order, reinterpretation of NFA, or legislation. Not seeing a politically advantageous means of not banning bumpstocks. If there is no advantage, politicians will not stand on principle (because they don’t, for anything, currently).
John Dingell III, excellent. Thank you for leading the way.
Because he Congressman Dingell’s grandson. Because he is who he is ATF may actually read what he had to say before rejectin his argument.
Thanx for making the connection.
I too felt the name was vaguely familiar and the language too legalistic to be just to be a man on the street retort but I was too lazy to google the name.
The constitution is used today only when it benefits the government or those protected by the government. There are far too many crimes and subsequent lack of enforcement action that serve to prove my charge. The second amendment is written clearly and distinctly using a minimum of words. Yet there are thousands of other laws, regulations, and taxes in place that render the second constitutional amendment meaningless. Until the people are serious about keeping their god given and inalienable rights to bear arms, they will lose those rights one part at a time.
First off, TTAG supports a ban, at least most of the comments I’ve read since the Las Vegas shooting.
Second the NRA Supports a “regulation” of bump stocks.
Third the gun community was NEVER serious about getting rid of the machine gun ban.
Fourth the gun community is just fine with the existing very expensive machine guns, and very old at that, that are still on the market. Ive heard gun owners say they are a “great investment”.
Fifth, the bump stock was NEVER ment to replace a machine gun. It is simply a less expensive alternative to buying a real machine gun.
Sixth, the Second Amendment was not written for rich white people. But it seems there are many people who think otherwise.
Seventh and finally, the gun community was NEVER serious about getting rid of the National Firearms Act from the 1930s.
ps. The machine guns that support the movie business and all their gun play on the big screen, those machine guns will be safe for many generations to come.
It would be interesting to go back and compare comments and see who was against the so-called militarization of the police compared with the same people who also support a ban on bump stock sales to civilians.
It was the Obama administration that sent grenade launchers and select fire M16s to police departments all over the United States.
I have to say I didn’t even read the article. Didn’t need too. A friend bought one a few years ago. A more useless piece of engineering I never saw. First, unless you’re part of an infantry unit; you seldom need full auto fire. Second, it’s mostly a waste of ammo. Shot them all: Thompson, MP-40, MACs,
Even if you are part of an infantry unit you will seldom need full auto fire.
Sometimes in the dark. Preferably with tracers.
Whether you want one or not, Fudds need to get it through their heads that after they ban the guns and accessories you don’t care about, they’ll be after yours next. How many of these lessons does it take for POTG to wake the heck up and grok this?
Just because someone points out that automatic fire isn’t particularly useful it doesn’t make them a FUDD. It says that they understand effective use of fire. If you think full auto is useful for something other than giggles than you have been watching too much TV.
Hmmm, interesting, guess the military and police can destroy all their select fire guns. They don’t serve a purpose other than giggles.
If I remember my small unit tactics training, machine guns are useful for defending a position against mass infantry assaults, and suppressive fire (to allow your forces to advance while the enemy is hunkered down, or to “flush” out enemy behind barriers).
Do you foresee an event where you want your LEOs putting down suppressive fire? For any reason? Do you foresee an event where you want your LEOs to use machine gun fire to “flush out” a suspect/perp?
Actually, if things keep going the way they are, yes I do see that as a distinct possibility. With the present soft coup in progress while the perps go free from major criminal activity, it appears that we may see action like that on our streets. Hope not, but the cops were supplied with this level of weaponry for a reason. That, and the fact that every federal agency has been armed and militarized over the past 8 years of BO, makes one think about what is really going on.
As it has been said many times:
“It ain’t a bill of needs”.
I say now, in the past, and the future, to all, and for all to hear:
I am a free human man. You cannot take my shit, nor will I give you my shit. I will say what I please, and you will never tell me what can be said by me. I will do harm to no one, unless they do/intend to do harm to me or mine. And then I will be the bear you will never escape from.
Quite frankly I am tired of this bullshit. Suck it up you bunch of good for nothing wimps. Own your liberty.
Nous Defions
Well….
That was certainly refreshing, enlightening, encouraging, and uplifting.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The pendulum is not swinging our way right now. The bump stock is a useless toy. Why hand the antis a cheap win by making a big deal out of it? Tbe best thing to do is just ignore it. There is no way that anybody will know you have one unless you are stupid enough to post a picture of you using it on instagram or Facebook. If you have been stupid about it go out and buy a second one and turn it in when it’s banned like a good citizen. We win if we give it the Irish democracy treatment.
Hmm, I must have missed when the pendulum did ever swing our way at the federal level. It seems like the anti’s got the pendulum swinging their direction by getting off their asses and making trouble for us. We can’t do that to them, though, by making a perfectly-justified stink about their attempts to confiscate some “useless toy.” We need to just lie low, give them what they want “since we can’t defend our rights anyway” and that will get the public behind us lickety split. You see how dumb that strategy sounds when put that way?
Yeah, go hide in your basement like Dale Gribble and see if the anti’s will stop coming for your stuff. Great plan. What hill do *you* think is worth defending, since low-capacity mags & manual repeaters are a hell of a lot less useful than a bump stock for important purposes? That’s all we’ll have left if this rule change goes through & is exploited to its fullest by an even more anti-gun administration than Trump’s.
What I am suggesting is that we simply thumb our collectives noses at the Feds. That is a lot more powerful response to the encroachment on our rides than bitching and moaning, and losing anyway. I prefer to let them have this ban and telling them to FOAD. Even in our present state of civil liberties the Feds won’t have probable cause to get a warrant. The ban is unenforceable and unenforceable laws and regulations become moot.
He did not say “give them what they want”, he said “ignore it”. Reread and think a minute. After 10 are turned in they can declare victory and move on.
Some of you guys really crack me up. OK, I get it… you are far to sophisticated to own or shoot a bump fire. You talk about how useless they are and what a waste of ammo they are. Sounds to me like you are too stupid or clumsy to figure out how to even use one and as far as a “waste of ammo” … I guess because of your criminal background or inability to make income you can’t consider owning a “useless” registered full auto either. I have a bump stock on a 16″ AR and have practiced with it and can shoot it as accurately as my registered select fires. Whether bump fire or a registered select fire most untrained people will usually let them go fast too long and lose any control the weapon might have. I can shoot a bump fire in 2-4 round bursts as accurately as my select fire Bushmaster or Windham (the Windham has a registered DIAS). If you don’t like them then don’t buy or shoot one. Most of you whiners are probably too stupid to even figure out how to use them even with the directions in front of you because a bump fire uses a set of motions that you have not practiced. As far as bump fires or full autos being a waste of ammo… that’s perfectly fine for you if that’s what you think…. or can’t afford.
I’m not in love with bump fires but they were legal for 12? years and came with letters from the ATF, just like the Sig and other arm braces. Does anyone really need one? The only thing any of us really needs is water, food, shelter and often the company of other humans. Do you really need a $52,000 Hemi engine truck… trips to Hawaii… cocaine … Twinkies??? It’s pretty unintelligent to willingly toss away a right to own something that has already been declared legal. You are letting them chip away so much at our rights that when the legislation comes forward to ban AR’s and AK’s, or have them declared as Destructive Devices like they did with the Street Sweeper and Stryker shotguns many years ago, that the votes may very well be there under a Congress owned by President Diane Feinstein or Maxine Waters….
You should write the letter and we should stand together.
This was my comment, not nearly as articulate as Mr. Dingell, but it took me THREE comments to get it all in, so I consider it 50% better. lol
To whom it may concern:
I am the owner of a Slide Fire tm stock I purchased a few years before the incident in Las Vegas.
I would like to point out that the incident in Las Vegas was at this point the ONLY murder I am aware of where a bump stock was used.
I would like to disagree with at least 2 items in your summary. From your summary:
“The shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017 highlighted the destructive capacity of firearms equipped with bump-stock type devices and the carnage they can inflict.”
This is incorrect. In fact, I would like the opportunity on a target range to prove what one shooter with a standard AR15 can do vs another shooter using the same AR15 with a bump stock in a 10 minute time period similar to Las Vegas. I’d like to see a comparison of projected casualties and injuries along with rounds fired and also the time to a gun overheat/malfunction in both cases. I already know the results will favor the shooter that AIMS, but apparently lawmakers and the general public don’t know this. I think most people would be surprised with the capabilities of a small internal magazine bolt action rifle commonly used for deer hunting vs. automatic weapon fire. I submit we were EXTREMELY LUCKY he used a bump stocks in Las Vegas instead of actually aiming his weapon to maximize fatalities!
“…and the costs associated with this rule are easily exceeded by the benefits it provides for public safety.”
Once again this is factually incorrect. The DOJ goes to excruciating length to quantify the costs, but has done no such math nor put a dollar figure on the “benefits” such rule would provide. Is the DOJ implying that a ban on bump stocks will reduce violent tendencies and/or the murder rate? What evidence supporting this claim does the DOJ provide?
I recall how the Brady Bill with the “assault weapon ban” was supposed to reduce gun crime, gun murder, and terrorism. Both sides of the debate have cherry picked data to show what they want. This is what I will factually state: Crime was not reduced during the ban or on the period after below the trend line. I concede the effect has now been negated in large part by Americans purchasing the previously banned weapons in large quantities. Yet, crime has continued trending lower so it becomes obvious that assault weapons are not and never were the problem.
The Government in congress and ATF were given the benefit of the doubt by voters and gun owners and produced no measurable results at this time. I defy supporters like Sen. Dianne Feinstein to show statistically meaningful numbers instead of reverting to an argument that the ban was not long enough. Small wonder after such result we gun owning citizens refuse to willingly submit to subjugation of our rights by the government so they can conduct flawed and meaningless experiments again at our expense. I am convinced the results will be the same in regards to banning bump-style stocks
The ATF reviewed the bump-style-stock several times and found it was NOT a machine gun by current definitions and I agree. If a single function of the trigger (push/or pull) results in multiple discharge of the firearm, I would like to invite you to please demonstrate with one hand operation with the other hand away or resting. On every other “machine gun” one hand with one pull on the trigger will discharge multiple rounds. The government can dislike and attempt to clarify all it wants, but the simple fact is a bump-fire-style stock is NOT a machine gun under current definition despite the DOJ opinion to the contrary.
The mentality appears to be (the DOJ) will rewrite the laws and definition however is convenient and political popular at this time, as they know better than the ATF who have some technical expertise in the area. I understand the DOJ was tasked with examining the law and providing an opinion banning bump-style-stocks but under current definitions from congress, I do not believe it has the power to do so. The ban must come from congress if there is to be one.
The exception I take to this approach of rewriting and redefining definitions in order to create new laws is that it is in clear violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments of the United States. Other constitutional scholars will be happy to explain these amendments far better than I am able to, but these aren’t some complicated words impossible for the layman to clearly understand. I understand sometimes the precedence has been set by courts including the supreme court, but deliberate misinterpretation whether due to personal views or political prejudice does not make it correct or justice.
2nd amendment meaning to me and the common American: This right is a right to defend oneself with weapons. It is not granted by the government, it is granted by our creator. The amendment exists as promise from the government that the US government will not infringe this GOD-GIVEN right of citizens.
With the revolutionary war only a decade past at the time of the constitution, it was clearly in the framers minds. They wanted the militia (all men ages 18-45 which should now include minorities and women) to have available weapons for their defense against any threat. I strongly disagree with the argument that the state National Guard represents the militia as the founding fathers intended. They are a dual state-federal reserve force where every brigade has been deployed on foreign soil, a de facto extension of the regular army. To the further argument of: “a well regulated militia being necessary….” This is a justification clause, not the objective. Well regulated is understood to mean properly functioning, like a clock.
Obviously the founders were concerned with threats from other nations, but considering they just fought a war against their own government at the time (English crown) and succeeded in winning their independence, they did not exclude their own government from transitioning to tyranny and desired that the people should have a means to preserve our own union from this tyranny. This is backed up by their personal writings, correspondence, and the Federalist papers.
During the lifetime of the framers, there were many advances in the technology and effectiveness in “arms.” It is disingenuous to suggest they meant only arms and artillery of the day. They very clearly would have expected their “militia” to field any advance or improved weaponry. Not just smooth bore muskets as rifling technology already existed. Personally, I am sure were James Madison here today to clarify, we would have no need for bump fire as citizens would have automatic weapons and modern field artillery.
The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution as it applies:
“….Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Do I need to explain this? The Government wishes to deprive me of my property. I have committed no crime; I have not threatened anyone else’s life or property with my possession. The Government wishes me destroy/surrender my property without my day in court. The DOJ summary claims (once again) “…and the costs associated with this rule are easily exceeded by the benefits it provides for public safety.”
So the government is taking my property for public use (public safety) without compensation? I remind you this is in the US constitution.
You may or may not be aware of the construction of bump-fire-type devices. I would like to inform you that these are non-complex 1 piece plastic assemblies that can readily be printed by virtually any plastic 3d printer. The plan is already available and downloadable on the internet. Videos have been uploaded to the internet detailing construction and usage. They can also be crudely but functionally manufactured in nearly every garage in America from a standard butt stock, standard grip, two flat metal bracket bars and some screws.
I would further like to inform you regarding engineering of fully automatic weapons that a criminal might turn to in lieu of a bump-stock-style equipped weapon.
Nearly all of the development, technology, and functional engineering of these weapons is well over 50 years old, much of it is over 100 year old. It does not take a skilled craftsman to produce a functional and reliable automatic weapon. In fact, third world unskilled labor such as that in Pakistan is easily able to manufacture and fabricate repairs functional automatic Kalashnikov style weaponry. It is far beyond naïve to believe ideologically committed criminals like the one in Las Vegas would abide by any laws restricting their weapons to any limiting legal standard. These criminals have already decided to take innocent human life; it is also naïve to believe that they would have any concern over converting a weapon to fully automatic if they believed that was the best way forward. The problem is not guns, bump stocks, standard capacity magazines, pressure cookers, pipe bombs, poisons, or vehicles. It is the evil in the heart and mind that we as a society refuse to address other than “time out” in prison or prescribing psychotropic drugs that make these defective bed-wetters even more insane.
The negative publicity of the existence of a government ban (i.e., if the Government bans, it must be extremely deadly; Therefore good for doing evil) will create large second hand black market demand and secretive hoarding. The legal manufactures will be out of business, but with increased demand a black market cottage industries will spring up to take their place which will lead to a wide proliferation of these devices by criminal and gang elements. These same law breakers might soon turn to modifying weapons to fully automatic internally and more professionally without use of bumpstocks. This phenomenon of black market supply/demand is not unique to firearms; it has happened nearly every time the government has attempted to restrict or control any product or service the public still demands and results have always been detrimental to our society. (Alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc)
Now let us look at the law abiding citizen’s compliance with the law. What will the compliance rate be? Judging by the state ban in Massachusetts where they collected exactly 4 (FOUR!) voluntarily surrendered bump-stock-style attachment (CBS Boston, February 2, 2018), it will be extremely low. So the government has instantly turned otherwise law abiding Americans into felons overnight. This is Ex post facto as the BATFE has previously ruled these devices are NOT machine guns and a copy of letter was included with all slidefire.com orders to my knowledge.
For my part, I will continue to educate and inform my fellow citizens about jury nullification as a final peaceable check on the tyranny and over reach of government authority. Any jury I am on, my morals will compel me to nullify any charges where a crime by possession of an outlawed firearm or device has been committed but no other harm has been done. I will NOT convict anyone on a free standing weapons charge.
I do understand in the public and political climate of today, there is an urgency to do something to prevent this senseless mass shooting that pervades media coverage. The problem with this mentality is mass shooting is a very small problem despite the media’s fascination with the coverage of it. The public obsession of guns being used as a tool of violent criminals is leading that same public to a well-intentioned call for a ban; unfortunately this public is entirely ignorant of the facts surrounding the actual operation of these bump stock devices; the capabilities; what it will do and will not do; and the discarding of their own civil liberties in order to feel safer when no further safety will be obtained.
This is a mob opinion rule by people working off emotions of the mass murder in Parkland, FL (where neither bump-style-stocks nor high capacity magazines were used) and it is leading us to a quasi-socialist rule of dictated by the court of uninformed public opinion.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”
Please honor these words at the Department of Justice and do what is right for justice, not what an emotional, uninformed mob demands.
Bravo !!
Well done sir! My own comment was completed in one pass but essentially said the same thing. I just basically outlined the function of a full auto weapon as apposed to the actually ‘manually operated’ mechanics of a bump stock. I especially like your comment regarding being on a jury panel. If we lose with the DOJ, we can win in the court by not convicting!
I can make my semi auto shoot just as fast with a rubber band or my finger. Well “they” can’t get rid of rubber bands or fingers. I certainly would hate to lose my 7400 . Fuck-U-Daffy-Duck
“Well “they” can’t get rid of rubber bands or fingers. ”
Been watching doings in UK recently? They are on the verge of banning kitchen knives. We have already seen that if you have a specific type metal tube, and some washers, and some copper scrub buds, some liquid, and some tools, you are a felon…constructive possession of an unregistered (thus illegal) gun “silencer”.
Don’t bet your family and your future on what government won’t do.
Should have said>” I certainly ‘will’ hate to lose my 7400.” It’s only a matter of time before we hear, .. Procession of Any firearm capable of firing a second shot Without being manually loaded ,,. Shit
Kind of odd that this isn’t a near-daily story on TTAG and other blogs. Anyone else remember all the gun-press surrounding the M855 classification? At least if that had gone through, there would have been other ammo options; with this overly broad rule change, semi-autos in general are on the chopping block (and that is not exaggeration just because .gov is not seeking to ban all semi-autos *today*)
Is it because the technical difference between bump fire and automatic is lost on even “gun people” if the gun can shoot rapidly enough?
Is it because the consequences of blurring that distinction are too complex for “gun people” to understand?
Is the reduced turnout because the NRA does not have our backs this time?
Is it because Trump is the primary driving force behind this ambitious gun ban effort and party comes before civil liberties?
Mr Dingell is wrong when he quotes the takings clause of the 5th amendment
They are not “ taking “ your lawfully acquired property
They are declaring it contraband. There is a big difference
Yes, if they take your house to build a freeway, you have to be compensated
The difference is that they took your property and used it for the public good of a freeway
When they made cocaine illegal, they did not buy up all the legally bought cocaine.
Even though everyone had a little cocaine in the medicine chest
They did not compensate the people who owned lawn darts when lawn darts were declared illegal
They did not compensate slave owners when slavery was made illegal
It is well settled law that they don’t need to compensate us for declaring our property contraband
It is well settled law that they don’t need to compensate us for declaring our property contraband
“Yes, if they take your house to build a freeway, you have to be compensated.”
Even if “they declare your house is contraband”? Consider: local government declares your neighborhood a national park, and private residences in/on a national park are illegal. Thus, homes on the park are now illegal, and now contraband.
What you surmise may just be the permission for government to nationalize everything in the country, without compensation, merely by using the term “contraband”.
I commented ( again) against the rule
They seem to have deleted all the comments from the last comment period
Once again this will be an ATF rule and not a law
Just like not shouldering pistol braces
Until someone is arrested and a judge upholds the rule, it does not have the force of a law
“Until someone is arrested and a judge upholds the rule, it does not have the force of a law”
Uuuuhhhmmm….I think not. The ruling must have “force of law” in order to exercise arrest authority. The ruling may fail at court, but until then you can be arrested and prosecuted (due process) for violations of the ruling (before a court adjudicates sufficiency).
A big idea reform that conservatives should be pushing and running on is to strip gov’t regulatory agencies of the power to write “law” through regulations. They should not be allowed to create “law” by fiat. They should be limited to enforcement of only existing laws that are specifically enumerated and written by Congress. None of this, “As the administrator sees fit…” crap or giving them blanket powers to achieve some larger nebulous goal however they see fit.
The problem lies with congress. Lawmakers want to pass vague legislation (plausible deniability at election time), and let the executive branch manage the details. Federal courts agree that agencies should be allowed to determine what their rules and regulations mean.
The problem is, at bottom, us.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
5,000 characters ain’t brevity.
I live in a small town in Indiana and there is a local gun shop owned by one of the cops here in town. They attended a ATF meeting that was set up to brief law enforcement about some new changes to the “coming laws” over this past two weeks in Indianapolis. The ATF very clearly spelled out to them that bump stocks are going to be banned, the comments period is merely a formality. He also mentioned this is just the beginning as they have their sights set on other prizes. I asked him if he would end up stacking uup on his neighbors front door with his buddies if there was non compliance. He felt that would be unnesc. as people will turn them in voluntarily. As he put it, “From my cold dead hands”, is something we all say but when push comes to shove, we are all talk. They way he puts it, are you willing to defend your ownership of the bumpstock with lethal force?
That sounds about right.
We should still comment nonetheless.
Absolutely, I did.
Here’s mine:
“That this has even managed to become a question AGAIN (to the ATF&E) is further proof that something is terribly wrong with the ATF&E as a regulation enforcement body, and we may need (as long as we’re just improperly going off consensus of public opinion here) scrap the bureau, and have you all pack your gear and go home.
“Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”
If this is what the ATF&E thinks is what actually occurs with the application and use of a ‘bump stock’ then you all can pack your gear and go home, because you’re not capable of protecting any of the rest of us, you’re only protecting yourselves and our government’s overreach of authority (and our government only consists of our neighbors who needed a job, promised to serve us, and are now threatening the rest of the citizenry with power it has improperly commanded).
Any semi-automatic weapon can achieve varied rates of fire in any number of ways in which it is held by the person firing it. NO RATE OF FIRE CAN BE AUGMENTED (BY A BUMP STOCK OR OTHER DEVICE THAT DOESTN’T ALTER THE PHYSICAL COMPONENTS OF THE FIREARM OR AMMUNITION) ABOVE THAT ALREADY INHERENT IN THE MECHANICS AND DESIGN OF SUCH SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON. If the attempt to ban bump stocks is an end-around to regulating semi-automatic firearms, then you all can pack your gear and go home.
If, making up out of whole cloth, the ATF&E’s authority to regulate bump stocks (which the ATF&E has already properly indicated that bump stocks do not fall under items regulated by the ATF&E) is an attempt to find a self-incited way to increase ATF&E’s authority and regulatory power(s), then you all can pack your gear and go home.
The ATF&E’s ruling, for itself, in this instance (re: a ‘ban’ on bump stocks) will only circle-file the last remaining vestiges of the American People’s reliance on what the ATF&E rules, as you get a different answer from the ATF&E depending on who you talk to, and what day of the week it is. The ATF&E’s handling of the ridiculous [and absolutely schizophrenic] classification system [sbr/pistol/rifle length] is a perfect example.
AND IF THAT AMBIGUITY IS MEANT TO PURPOSEFULLY CHASE THE AVERAGE U.S. GUN OWNER INTO A SMALLER AND SMALLER CORNER OF GUN-OWNERSHIP, then you can all pack your gear and go home.”
1. I have a bump stock
2. Yes, its a stupid useless gimmick
3. Not standing up to a federal mandate to destroy or surrender a gun product you legally bought is insanely stupid for all of us. Why stop at bump stocks?
Conclusion – This is a worthy fight for all 2A advocates, bump stock fan or not. WAKE UP!!
Wake up? Millions and millions of American gun owners and the site only shows 15K of inputs? Guess the couch is just too comfortable to act.
I have no use for junk. However, this ban opens the door to more and more. Not mention ATF can’t be making law.
Honorable Neil Gorsuch and Hon. Judge Kagan opinions on “violent immigrant” laws. Can this principle be applied to the bump stock law?
“Vague laws”, Gorsuch wrote, “can invite the exercise of arbitrary power … by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up. The law before us today is such a law.”
“The void-for-vagueness doctrine, as we have called it, guarantees that ordinary people have ‘fair notice’ of the conduct a statute proscribes,” Kagan wrote. “And the doctrine guards against arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement by insisting that a statute provide standards to govern the actions of police officers, prosecutors, juries and judges.”
How can a retrospective law provide “fair notice” to “ordinary, law-abiding people”?
You all receive political “please send me money letter” every day or week. Answer every one by entering $0 dollars in the “how much am I sending in” box with a note that says “Sorry, all my money will be used to defend my 2nd amendment rights and my right to buy any accessory for my firearm that I want”
This is my submission. I stressed this is not about gun control. Its about the taking of legally purchased property without due process or compensation. As such this is really a 5A issue. Not a 2A issue.
Dear Sirs,
The problem here is not that you have simply classified bump stocks as machine guns. If you had done so when SlideFire originally sent a sample to your technology branch in approximately 2010, then the Slidefire stock would be nothing but another failed accessory.
The problem is that SlideFire went through the process to get approval from the technology branch to get an approval letter. They then engaged in commerce selling these accessories with the EXPLICIT approval from the ATF.
So now here we are 8 years later and the ATF wants to recategorize the SlideFire stock and others like it.
That would be fine if one or both of the following remedies were taken.
1) Reimburse SlideFire owners for the purchase price of their stocks.
2) Allow current owners to serialize their stocks and register them as machine guns within the current NFA system.
The problem with how this is being implemented has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with due process and the taking of lawfully purchased property with no compensation.
This is not a 2A issue. Rather it is a 5A due process violation.
Imagine for a moment that you bought one of the new 800 hp Dodge Challengers. Its currently legal. Now imagine that the government, with nothing more than a pronouncement from a bureaucrat, a few years from now decided that anything with more than 200 hp was a risk to society and ordered all owners of said car to either turn them into the Government or destroy them.
It would never fly. And neither should this. This is pure unadulterated TYRANNY. Again. This has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with the taking of property without due process of law.
Best regards,
p.s. If instead, Congress had passed legislation banning the future manufacture and sale of these items, there would be no Constitutional problems because:
1) there would be due process.
2) there wouldn’t be any “taking” without compensation.