Justice Department and ATF Begin Regulatory Process to Determine Whether Bump Stocks

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    The only thing that can fix this is a one year NFA amnesty!
    Which can't happen unless Congress modifies the law. It's not something that ATF can do administratively. How many bump stocks were posessed, or even in existence, prior to the 1986 Hughes Amendment?
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    Let's all get together on this then.

    Can we all put out heads in a row and come up with a reasonably worded argument that someone could cut and paste to the BAFTE website in numbers? I know that some of you guys are smart enough to put in words something better than "because the 2nd amendment says so."

    https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...stocks-and-other-similar-devices#open-comment

    .,

    no clear definition of a "bump stock", classifying accessories that do not modify the trigger group or alter the firing mechanism is counter to decades worth of case law and regulation. Bump fire is a technique inherent to the vast majority of privately owned firearms, it is not a device, etc.
    At this point i'm tired of letters and forms, they probably just count how many are for vs against and see if it is worth the political capitol and defense against lawsuits to change the rules. so I'm just sending them "gun bans are Bulls#!t", and attaching a picture of Master Ken.
     

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    Is a bump stock still a bump stock if you have the stock locked out? For those who don't know, a bump stock has a lever that will allow the stock to lock and makes this just another/regular stock. Thus making the "bump stock" just like any other stock.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    Everyone should write a comment against this BS. Tell all of your non-MDS friends about this too.

    For evil to prevail, it takes good men to do nothing, or something like that......
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    What 2 ATF regulations are to be removed, if a bump stock ban is adopted?

    Is a bump stock ban worth 2 existing BATFE regulations?
     

    LeadSled1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2009
    4,245
    MD
    The main thing is a bump stock does not in any way make a firearm cycle faster. The time from battery to battery is exactly the same. I would love to see the ATF try to prove that adding a piece of plastic to the outside of a firearm which does not interact with the action can make it cycle faster. Voodoo magic.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,691
    Let's all get together on this then.

    Can we all put out heads in a row and come up with a reasonably worded argument that someone could cut and paste to the BAFTE website in numbers? I know that some of you guys are smart enough to put in words something better than "because the 2nd amendment says so."

    https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...stocks-and-other-similar-devices#open-comment

    .,


    Here's mine, for what it's worth:

    Comment:
    Insofar as these devices have been widely sold and not serial-numbered, it would be difficult to devise a reasonable means of regulation.

    Beyond that, it has been extensively documented that bump-fire can be achieved easily without the use of the device.

    Despite the highly-charged and overly politicized Las Vegas incident, which to date has yet to be fully studied, documented or even examined, these devices are not generally useful, nor in common use. Aside from providing fodder for the various sides in the gun control debates, which puts the Agency in an awkward position regarding "playing politics", there seems little point in pursuing regulation regarding these items. It adds a considerable burden to the Agency with no real-world benefit.
     

    BALBZ

    bad ass LBZ that is
    Apr 6, 2013
    155
    Eastern Shore MD
    Let's all get together on this then.

    Can we all put out heads in a row and come up with a reasonably worded argument that someone could cut and paste to the BAFTE website in numbers? I know that some of you guys are smart enough to put in words something better than "because the 2nd amendment says so."

    https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...stocks-and-other-similar-devices#open-comment

    .,

    Here is my comment. I used some wording from some of the posts/comments in this thread (hopefully those people will not mind).

    These devices have been widely sold and not serial-numbered, it would be impossible to devise a reasonable means of regulation. Beyond that, it has been extensively documented that "bump-fire" can be achieved easily without the use of a "bump-fire" device. There are people that have accomplished the same rate of fire that a "bump stock" can potentially provide with nothing more then there finger and practice feathering the trigger of their semi-automatic sporting rifle. Bump firing is a technique, not a device, meaning there is absolutely no way to regulate it. Aside from providing fodder for the various sides in the gun control debates, which puts the Agency in an awkward position regarding "playing politics", there seems little point in pursuing regulation regarding these items. It adds a considerable burden to the Agency with no real-world benefit.

    Furthermore a bump stock does not in any way make a firearm cycle faster. The time from battery to battery is exactly the same. Adding a piece of plastic to the outside of a firearm which does not interact with the action can not make the action cycle faster.

    Additionally a stock is not a firearm. The ATF and our government have already infringed on the peoples right to bear arms (firearms). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosives in no way has the authority to regulate the technique a person uses to fire there legally owned firearm! Which is essentially what this regulation would be attempting to do.

    Lastly My Second Amendment right as a citizen of the United States of America states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Any regulation on this matter is a direct infringement of my Constitutional Right!
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,485
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom