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: Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Bureau (ATF)
Document Type: Rulemaking
Title: Bump-Stock Type Device
Document ID: 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 in the Federal Register on March 29, 2018 is an illegal use of Executive Branch authority and should be withdrawn.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.