Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

thep1zzaman · May 3, 2018

I am composing my binary trigger approval letter to the ATF, and was considering using this langauge in a seperate paragraph after the initial approval request.

"Are there any current Federal regulations or restrictions that would prohibit my ownership of a binary trigger? If the ATF will not issue approvals for possession of a binary trigger, is the ATF willing to issue a reply stating that I am not denied from possessing a binary trigger based on Federal regulations or restrictions?"

swinokur · May 3, 2018

My guess is that BATF will not issue any other wording other than what is in the advisory. The lawyers are running the show now.

And welcome. Please go introduce yourself in the Introductions forum. Glad you're here

hi3cho · May 3, 2018

smokey0118 said:
View attachment 232311

It just says that you have to have applied to the ATF. it says absolutely nothing about being approved. To me, that means that if you document your attempt to apply to them, you are in compliance...because you'd be in compliance with the feds, applied before oct 1, and possessed it before oct 1. So who cares about getting approval, just apply and you're gtg.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, so maybe someone else can explain why my take on this is incorrect.

There is another section that specifically says you must receive Authorization from the ATF by Oct 1, 2019.

fabsroman · May 3, 2018

smokey0118 said:
View attachment 232311

It just says that you have to have applied to the ATF. it says absolutely nothing about being approved. To me, that means that if you document your attempt to apply to them, you are in compliance...because you'd be in compliance with the feds, applied before oct 1, and possessed it before oct 1. So who cares about getting approval, just apply and you're gtg.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, so maybe someone else can explain why my take on this is incorrect.

Yeah,I missed the additional section too. After 4-306, they drafted another 4-305.1 that ends up going into effect on 10/1/2019, and that sections changes the wording such that approval from the ATF is required by 10/1/2019.

So, one must possess the item before 10/1/2018 and apply to the ATF by 10/1/2018, and must receive approval from the ATF by 10/1/2019.

It really does piss me off because the statute could have been drafted a little better than that since there isn't any current approval process with ATF. We shall see if anybody is actually going to willingly litigate this, or if it will end up being somebody doing so unwillingly after charged with violating this law.

deesly1 · May 3, 2018

This is what happens when you have a state that is purposely trying to trick its citizens into committing crimes. This state creates a problem because unlike Bump stocks, binary triggers and trigger cranks etc. are not being federally mandated for destruction. So the state is trying to legally lump the later with the former.(by legal definition) But how is this "ex-post-facto" law legal to all individuals who possess something that is very much legal before 10/1/2018. Then Maryland put in an impossible hurdle to fulfill an unfulfillable law. This goes back to sloppy rulemaking. It seems like the lawmakers in this state just attempt to throw 300 lbs of Sh@t at a wall and see what sticks. In the process, they do not care who the defecations lands on!(You and me)

iH8DemLibz · May 3, 2018

deesly1 said:
This is what happens when you have a state that is purposely trying to trick its citizens into committing crimes. This state creates a problem because unlike Bump stocks, binary triggers and trigger cranks etc. are not being federally mandated for destruction. So the state is trying to legally lump the later with the former.(by legal definition) But how is this "ex-post-facto" law legal to all individuals who possess something that is very much legal before 10/1/2018. Then Maryland put in an impossible hurdle to fulfill an unfulfillable law. This goes back to sloppy rulemaking. It seems like the lawmakers in this state just attempt to throw 300 lbs of Sh@t at a wall and see what sticks. In the process, they do not care who the defecations lands on!(You and me)

I can hear the prosecutors now.....Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

jkeys · May 3, 2018

thep1zzaman said:
I am composing my binary trigger approval letter to the ATF, and was considering using this langauge in a seperate paragraph after the initial approval request.

"Are there any current Federal regulations or restrictions that would prohibit my ownership of a binary trigger? If the ATF will not issue approvals for possession of a binary trigger, is the ATF willing to issue a reply stating that I am not denied from possessing a binary trigger based on Federal regulations or restrictions?"

I already tried that. They answered with their form statement and then ignored all further correspondence.

swinokur · May 3, 2018

You're not going to get anything but that canned response from now on.

IMO

Bob A · May 3, 2018

iH8DemLibz said:
I can hear the prosecutors now.....Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's a pity that this doesn't apply to the lawmakers themselves.

danb · May 3, 2018

swinokur said:
You're not going to get anything but that canned response from now on.

IMO

"Not unauthorized"

Same as my most recent pistol purchase.

thep1zzaman · May 3, 2018

jkeys said:
I already tried that. They answered with their form statement and then ignored all further correspondence.

Random thought - I wonder if anyone would get a response if they ask for authorization to possess based on a non Maryland address. From how I understand the law, you need to possess the binary trigger prior to Oct 1st 2018 and have applied for premission before then. The law doesn't state you have to be a Maryland resident when you ask the ATF for premission.

clandestine · May 3, 2018

I wonder if a stock or trigger is "married" to a Title II Receiver (SBR, or AOW) then would ATF have to accept?

adit · May 4, 2018

Is a bumpstock only a bumpstock when it is installed on a firearm?

It is just a paperweight (piece of plastic) when it is not (kind of a comparison to those brass knuckle belt buckles)?

smokey · May 4, 2018

hi3cho said:
There is another section that specifically says you must receive Authorization from the ATF by Oct 1, 2019.

fabsroman said:
Yeah,I missed the additional section too. After 4-306, they drafted another 4-305.1 that ends up going into effect on 10/1/2019, and that sections changes the wording such that approval from the ATF is required by 10/1/2019.

So, one must possess the item before 10/1/2018 and apply to the ATF by 10/1/2018, and must receive approval from the ATF by 10/1/2019.

It really does piss me off because the statute could have been drafted a little better than that since there isn't any current approval process with ATF. We shall see if anybody is actually going to willingly litigate this, or if it will end up being somebody doing so unwillingly after charged with violating this law.

Bah! I missed the bottom section. Those tricky bitches...

Hawkeye · May 4, 2018

clandestine said:
I wonder if a stock or trigger is "married" to a Title II Receiver (SBR, or AOW) then would ATF have to accept?

That's a good question. I would guess that they still wouldn't want any part of it, because we would still be asking them to rule on a piece of machinery that they have no specific legal jurisdiction over (at least for now). I would guess that they'd treat it like they would a suppressor that was pinned and welded on to an SBR or a machinegun. Those are still two stamp weapons, because there are two separate parts of them that are NFA regulated. ATF will make rulings about the suppressor and or the SBR / machinegun because they have legal jurisdiction over those items. They don't over bumpstocks, so I doubt they'd care. MSP / Maryland will still care, though.

adit said:
Is a bumpstock only a bumpstock when it is installed on a firearm?

The way that the statute is written I think would make them illegal, period. There's no language about being installed or not, and the definitions of what makes a "rapid fire trigger activator" or whatever they're calling them in the statute don't require them to be installed. They are defined like this: (forgive crappy formatting, I am copy / pasting)

(E) “BINARY TRIGGER SYSTEM” MEANS A DEVICE THAT, WHEN INSTALLED
12 IN OR ATTACHED TO A FIREARM, FIRES BOTH WHEN THE TRIGGER IS PULLED AND
13 ON RELEASE OF THE TRIGGER.

14 (F) “BUMP STOCK” MEANS A DEVICE THAT, WHEN INSTALLED IN OR
15 ATTACHED TO A FIREARM, INCREASES THE RATE OF FIRE OF THE FIREARM BY USING
16 ENERGY FROM THE RECOIL OF THE FIREARM TO GENERATE A RECIPROCATING
17 ACTION THAT FACILITATES REPEATED ACTIVATION OF THE TRIGGER.

18 (G) “BURST TRIGGER SYSTEM” MEANS A DEVICE THAT, WHEN INSTALLED IN
19 OR ATTACHED TO A FIREARM, ALLOWS THE FIREARM TO DISCHARGE TWO OR MORE
20 SHOTS WITH A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER BY ALTERING THE TRIGGER RESET.

So they define them as "a device that, when installed in a firearm, does xyz." Thus it's still a "burst trigger system" or "bump stock" or "binary trigger system" even when it's not installed in a firearm.

S.M.I.B · May 4, 2018

esqappellate said:
I have a request. Would everyone out there with a now banned device please join MSI? $25 a year. https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/join And please let me know that you have. Thanks.

Joined MSI.

esqappellate · May 4, 2018

S.M.I.B said:
Joined MSI.

Thank you. We can act on behalf of members. We can't act on behalf of NON members.

CrawfishStu · May 4, 2018

My wife gave me a membership this year for our anniversary. Specifically, because of laws like these and MSI's fight against it.

iH8DemLibz · May 4, 2018

A week has past and still no word from the ATF.

Maybe they were serious when they said they won't address any Maryland e-mails.

Time to try a different e-mail angle.

Allen65 · May 4, 2018

iH8DemLibz said:
A week has past and still no word from the ATF.

Maybe they were serious when they said they won't address any Maryland e-mails.

Time to try a different e-mail angle.

I wouldn't expect much out of ATF right now. IIRC, the White House still hasn't nominated anyone for ATF Director, and people "acting in the capacity of" (the term used for an Acting Director these days) tend not to take risks, make significant changes to policy, or allow much of anything that could cause controversy to happen.

Grandfathering for Bump Stocks or Binary Triggers

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

When All Else Fails.

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

όυ φροντισ

dont be a dumbass

Member

AR-15 Savant

ReMember

2A TEACHER

The Leatherstocking

Active Member

President, MSI

Creeper

When All Else Fails.

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics