Department of Justice Proposed Rules on "Bump Stocks"

cantstop · Mar 26, 2018

DC-W said:
...
PDF of proposed rules here:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

I'm going to cross post this from the Water Cooler thread.

I read this paper, signed by Sessions and the entire argument seems based on this text on page 5. It is flawed in that it attempts to state that the entire bump action is performed by the bumpstock device. This paper completely ignores the fact that a rifle will not continue to fire if the non-firing hand is not pulling the gun forward.

usc45cal · Mar 26, 2018

so why did they not think about this when they gave the thumbs up on it ,,,, the atf made it ok to own so WTF did someone get paid to give it the ok knowing its capabilities ,,,, asleep at the wheel or what ? just an opinion

iH8DemLibz · Mar 26, 2018

usc45cal said:
so why did they not think about this when they gave the thumbs up on it ,,,, the atf made it ok to own so WTF did someone get paid to give it the ok knowing its capabilities ,,,, asleep at the wheel or what ? just an opinion

What capabilities would that be?

usc45cal · Mar 26, 2018

fire rate ................... im pro gun all of the way can you see my gun room ......... my point was the atf let it slide so who is holding them accountable damn dude alot of posts congrats

KH195 · Mar 26, 2018

usc45cal said:
fire rate ................... im pro gun all of the way can you see my gun room ......... my point was the atf let it slide so who is holding them accountable damn dude alot of posts congrats

No one "let it slide". Bump stocks do not fit the definition of machine guns, it's as simple as that. ATF made them "OK to own" because of that. No loophole, no letting anything slide, no one needs held accountable for that original decision, because they aren't machine guns and they don't turn semi autos into machine guns.

IronEye · Mar 26, 2018

Maybe this will help steer the conversation:

U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 5845

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

(b) Machinegun

The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Back to the discussion: BATF ruled that a bump stock equipped firearm fires a single shot from each function of the trigger. It is not a machine gun.

lawrencewendall · Mar 29, 2018

Giving up the question regarding bump stocks

Interesting article. Slippery slope.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/should_we_surrender_on_bump_stocks.html

GlocksAndPatriots · Mar 29, 2018

The question shouldn't be "If machine guns are banned, why aren't bump stocks" but "Why are machine guns banned in the first place?"

I still subscribe to the notion that any gun law that exempts law enforcement is a priori a bad one.

Doctor_M · Mar 29, 2018

Not directed at the prior poster, but just a general comment... I get very tired of the media telling me that machine guns are banned, or illegal, or prohibited from civilian ownership. They are not. They are highly regulated and taxed. I believe that 38 states allow private ownership of machine guns, including the Old Line State.

kohburn · Mar 29, 2018

KH195 said:
No one "let it slide". Bump stocks do not fit the definition of machine guns, it's as simple as that. ATF made them "OK to own" because of that. No loophole, no letting anything slide, no one needs held accountable for that original decision, because they aren't machine guns and they don't turn semi autos into machine guns.

exactly...

the version of the bump stocks that the ATF did NOT approve was spring loaded so that it took no additional effort from the user and would function one handed.

if that is the final wording of what they are proposing it does not actually affect the bump stocks that are currently out there, a "feel good" law with zero practical change.

Inigoes · Mar 29, 2018

kohburn said:
if that is the final wording of what they are proposing it does not actually affect the bump stocks that are currently out there, a "feel good" law with zero practical change.

A regulation is not a law, and regulations may not subvert laws either.

DC-W · Mar 29, 2018

COMMENT PERIOD OFFICIALLY OPEN
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

GlocksAndPatriots · Mar 29, 2018

Doctor_M said:
Not directed at the prior poster, but just a general comment... I get very tired of the media telling me that machine guns are banned, or illegal, or prohibited from civilian ownership. They are not. They are highly regulated and taxed. I believe that 38 states allow private ownership of machine guns, including the Old Line State.

Yes, I know, but the fact that the only legal ones are now at least 32 years old to me is a de facto ban. You can't buy one at a reasonable price, and the few that exist and still work will only increase in price.

Doctor_M · Mar 29, 2018

Fair point.

iH8DemLibz · Mar 29, 2018

DC-W said:
COMMENT PERIOD OFFICIALLY OPEN
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

Thanks for posting the link.

fidelity · Mar 29, 2018

lawrencewendall said:
Interesting article. Slippery slope.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/should_we_surrender_on_bump_stocks.html

Similar arguments about the danger of a bump stock ban being predicated on a rate of fire or "dangerous feature" argument have been made here since the NRA, Trump, and others started to suggest the possibility ... however this writer does a better job than most in articulating why such regulation could be expanded to included semiautomatic and indeed all firearms. Worth forwarding.

DC-W said:
COMMENT PERIOD OFFICIALLY OPEN
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

44man · Mar 29, 2018

thanks for the link, I fumbled around and wrote something as best I could.

D-Log · Mar 29, 2018

Just posted my comment. Not sure how much of a difference it will make, but at least I did my part.

cechk01 · Mar 30, 2018

So when this goes through, could there be a lawsuit about being forced to forfeit property?

DC-W · Mar 30, 2018

cechk01 said:
So when this goes through, could there be a lawsuit about being forced to forfeit property?

Gun Owners of America have stated that they intend to sue.

https://gunowners.org/goa-on-pres-trump-s-latest-push-to-ban-bump-stocks.htm

Department of Justice Proposed Rules on "Bump Stocks"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Pentultimate Member

Attachments

nothing

When All Else Fails.

nothing

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Been There, Done That

Banned

Certified Mad Scientist

Resident MacGyver

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Banned

Certified Mad Scientist

When All Else Fails.

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics