bumpstock ban process

Status
Not open for further replies.
This error will be exploited by the true enemies of the 2nd Amendment in the future.


Very well could be true IF it stands.

IF it fails in the courts, the ruling could be very favorable for us.

High stakes indeed.


RGB needs to leave before 2020 otherwise the replacement will be blocked using the Election Year excuse..... unless that is countered by going nuclear.

I don't want the either side to go nuclear.
 
Very well could be true IF it stands.

IF it fails in the courts, the ruling could be very favorable for us.

High stakes indeed.
Exactly. Since that is the case, why isn't the NRA taking part in the lawsuits seeking to overturn it?
RGB needs to leave before 2020 otherwise the replacement will be blocked using the Election Year excuse..... unless that is countered by going nuclear.

I don't want the either side to go nuclear.
The procedure now is that Supreme Court appointments are confirmed with a bare majority of senators. That's what happened with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. We can no longer speak of a "nuclear option" involving judges.

All that is needed now for a Supreme Court appointment is a president and 50 senators of the same party. On the other hand, there would be an impasse if a Democrat is elected president in 2020, but the Senate remains in Republican hands. That would mean that any vacancy would not be filled until (at the earliest) after the 2022 election. Unlike in the past, confirmations have become strictly partisan affairs.
 
Exactly. Since that is the case, why isn't the NRA taking part in the lawsuits seeking to overturn it?

The procedure now is that Supreme Court appointments are confirmed with a bare majority of senators. That's what happened with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. We can no longer speak of a "nuclear option" involving judges.

All that is needed now for a Supreme Court appointment is a president and 50 senators of the same party. On the other hand, there would be an impasse if a Democrat is elected president in 2020, but the Senate remains in Republican hands. That would mean that any vacancy would not be filled until (at the earliest) after the 2022 election. Unlike in the past, confirmations have become strictly partisan affairs.
"why isn't the NRA taking part in the lawsuits seeking to overturn it?"
Because if your existence and livelihood is tied up in fighting an enemy, then you have a vested interest in that enemy's continued survival, that's why.
 
Bumpstocks. Never liked them, never will and I think they are a waste of time and money. But a ban on anything that is currently legal gun related is not good. This will let them get their foot in the door and make criminals out of those honest people that won't turn them in. You know that will happen. That's trouble in the long run. Hopefully some court will stop the nonsense. IMO.:(:uhoh:
 
Dip it in bovine excrement, and send to your local gun runners office (BATFE).

Seems an appropriate first amendment protected protest.
 
90 days is flat out FAST.
Not really, 90 days is a very consistently used in legislation of all types.

Even when legislation uses "a date certain," it's typically more than 40 days and less than 180 days from the enactment. Texas, for example has State Law go into effect the 1 September after the legislation is signed.

Pretty sure Hughes went into effect 90 days after enactment; I remember FOPA having that sort of immediate effect. GCA 68 was of a similar speed.
 
Pretty sure Hughes went into effect 90 days after enactment; I remember FOPA having that sort of immediate effect. GCA 68 was of a similar speed.
"Date of enactment" is the date a bill is signed by the President. The final version of FOPA passed the House on April 10, 1986, but wasn't signed by Reagan until May 19. That one-month-plus delay allowed machine gun manufacturers to crank out thousands of guns (and bare receivers/sideplates) before the deadline. The bill went into effect promptly on May 19.

There was less of a delay in signing the GCA '68 -- it was passed by the House on October 10 and signed by LBJ on October 22.
 
I understand precedent set is bad if allowed, but in cases a heavy desire to regulate something can result in bad precedent. Getting ready for a big bump stock fight is aligning with a losing fight that will swallow too much with the precedent it sets if you play the game stupid. We didn't want or need bump stocks, they do a poor job at shooting full auto having less control and accuracy than normal full auto as the entire firearm is bouncing around. They clearly get around the intent of other legislation, even if they do it in a way that is different than defined by the legislation. So whether you win or lose the result is likely legislation to correct the issue if you win, new legislation crafted by Congress on an issue that the President and even the more favorable to gun rights current Congress would likely pass with bipartisan support. What happens would be in the details of new legislation if that happens. While if you lose the new terminology or ability to arbitrarily change the standards or apply them differently will become more securely cemented in place. Readily converted? That is rather arbitrary and could just include all semi autos if you include the machine shop the ATF does, an expert, and 30 minutes of time to modify it. Many of the most common firearms clearly have simple aftermarket parts for converting firearms for the law enforcement and other exempt market.
Any real machinist could set up a mechanism or part that works with or around the mechanism of any firearm that makes it full auto with some basic understanding of how the firearm operates and no need to even convert it in the official way. So everything is arbitrarily readily converted.
 
Bump stocks were not a "way around the law". They weren't "backdoor machine guns". I keep seeing this repeated here. All a bump stock did was increase the rate of fire. There was still a trigger pull for each and every shot.

A binary trigger increases the rate of fire. Will that be next? A semi auto increases the rate of fire, a lever action increases the rate of fire, a pump action increases the rate of fire, a bolt action increases the rate of fire, a double rifle increases the rate of fire, finally we're down to single shot rifles, which increase the rate of fire over a muzzleloader.

All the above, double, lever, pump, semi, and bolt, are all devices to increase the rate of fire over a single shot.

Where would you have the Anti's draw the line? I know where I draw it. Refer to my sig.
 
A binary trigger increases the rate of fire. Will that be next? A semi auto increases the rate of fire, a lever action increases the rate of fire, a pump action increases the rate of fire, a bolt action increases the rate of fire, a double rifle increases the rate of fire, finally we're down to single shot rifles, which increase the rate of fire over a muzzleloader....

Where would you have the Anti's draw the line? I know where I draw it. Refer to my sig.

Exactly and exactly.
 
This whole bump stock issue reminds me of a few years ago when ATF was trying to ban M855 ammo as being armor piercing because it had a steel penetrator. They had to finally drop that idea when it was pointed out that Federal statutes clearly defined what armor piercing ammunition was. Now they've hit on bump stocks and label them a machinegun, even though the statute clearly defines what a machinegun is.

I have a feeling their ruling was a political move that will not stand up in a court.
 
This whole bump stock issue reminds me of a few years ago when ATF was trying to ban M855 ammo as being armor piercing because it had a steel penetrator. They had to finally drop that idea when it was pointed out that Federal statutes clearly defined what armor piercing ammunition was..

Not to stray off the topic of bump stocks, but the ATF attempt to ban M855 had sound legal reasoning behind it based strictly on the statute. The statute bans any handgun ammunition with a steel core (mild or hardened is is not specified in the law), and the slew of AR pistols now on the market made the 5.56x45 cartridge a pistol cartridge.

18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(17)(B)

(B)The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.​

The only exception to the above is a finding by the Attorney General that the projectile in question is primarily intended to be used for sporting or industrial purposes. M855 currently operates under just such a sporting purposes exemption, but any future Attorney General could reverse that decision.
 
....and the slew of AR pistols now on the market made the 5.56x45 cartridge a pistol cartridge.
AR "pistols" are obviously a workaround for the SBR restriction, especially when equipped with an "arm brace." If the bump stock ban stands, the next administration is going to ban arm braces in the same way.

But there is even less justification for an AR "pistol" than for a bump stock. There is no freeze on SBR's, the way there is for machine guns. If you really want a short AR, just file a Form 1 and build a real one. All this stuff about AR "pistols" is nonsense.
 
All this stuff about AR "pistols" is nonsense.

As long as they exist, AR pistols are the reason for the attempt at banning M855. Just wait until a future less 2A friendly administration bans .7.62 NATO Black Tip on similar grounds.

The reason the NFA taxes SBRs is because handguns were also supposed to be taxed at the then outrageous amount of $200 as well.

Personally, I think it's nonsense to pay a $200 tax, go through a more thorough background check than NICS, and wait up to a year for "permission" to buy or build an SBR. However, the law is the law, until we both work to get it changed.
 
Last edited:
The final rule has been published in the Federal Register effective 12/26/18, so the 90 day clock starts unless a court issues an injunction in relation to the several lawsuits that have been filed.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices

The leading tactic of the lawsuits thus far is not attacking the ruling that bump stocks are machine guns, but that Matthew Whitaker inappropriately signed the final rule as an improper appointee as Acting Attorney General.

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...me-Court-Attorneys-Goldstein-Russell-P-C.html
 
What else can be done than to design a pistol or stock (etc.) within the confines of the determined law? The words and context denote and operate within a specific meaning. Playing loose and fast with the definitions of these specific words is the same as saying that the definitions are somehow living and therefore subject to change based on nothing more than agendas. Saying that something skirts the intent of the law is the same as admitting that the lawmakers didn't mean what they said and didn't say what they meant. So those who wish to operate withing the confines of the law are supposed to do what exactly? Voluntarily further handicap their rights based on some non-established or defined "intent"? What kind of self-oppression is this? "Well we didn't say it...but you should have known that's what we meant!" What nonsense.

The law says what it means and means what it says...and if it doesn't it is not the fault of those who seek to work within it's confines. To see half a million legal gun owners getting so casually turned into (potentially) felons is despicable and counter-productive, and those who applaud such actions because of a nearsighted, "I didn't like them anyways" mindset are even more detrimental to the overall health of our rights.

Do any of us think that the convolution or corresponding frustration is by accident? Yes, let's talk about intent...
 
The ATF letter they published stating that AR pistols are why they were going to ban M855.

Read it here: https://www.atf.gov/file/11266/download

I appreciate the link. Generally speaking a rifle cartridge is going to penetrate soft body armor regardless if it is M855 (not an armor piercing round) or not. So to me it seems nonsensical to use an AR pistol as justification to go after M855. No?
 
Dip it in bovine excrement, and send to your local gun runners office (BATFE).

Seems an appropriate first amendment protected protest.
I believe my state was the first in the nation to ban them, and I think they collected exactly 11bumpstocks. Either there were only 11 in the state OR like I would just assume dump it in the trash, than turn it in. There was zero compensation.....sounds just plain wrong
 
Especially when they could use the Encore pistol to ban all rifle ammo.
SC45-70
You didn't read the ATF letter I linked to above. They specifically stated that rifle caliber cartridges for which only single shot pistols were available would presumptively qualify as a Sporting Use exemption. Therefore cartridges such as .30-06 M2AP were still exempt. The letter also stated that when they approved the sporting use exemption for M855 in 1986, there were only single shot pistols commonly available for the cartridge. But by the time of the letter, 2015, semi-auto AR style pistols with detachable box magazines were in common use, thereby nullifying their previous Sporting Use exemption. Apparently it was only due to the enormous pushback by the public that the ATF withdrew their proposed ban.

But we are straying away from the subject of this thread, the ATF final determination of bump stock devices as machine guns.
 
You didn't read the ATF letter I linked to above. They specifically stated that rifle caliber cartridges for which only single shot pistols were available would presumptively qualify as a Sporting Use exemption. Therefore cartridges such as .30-06 M2AP were still exempt. The letter also stated that when they approved the sporting use exemption for M855 in 1986, there were only single shot pistols commonly available for the cartridge. But by the time of the letter, 2015, semi-auto AR style pistols with detachable box magazines were in common use, thereby nullifying their previous Sporting Use exemption. Apparently it was only due to the enormous pushback by the public that the ATF withdrew their proposed ban.

But we are straying away from the subject of this thread, the ATF final determination of bump stock devices as machine guns.
Yes
And bump stocks are legal until they are not!
SC45-70
 
ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

I think the magic wording here is "designed and intended". Does anyone realistically believe that M855 ammunition was designed and intended for use in handguns?

ATF was inundated with communications from the 'sporting' users of that ammunition and it gave them an excuse to drop their stance, so the legality of their proposed ban was not something they, or the administration, had to deal with. With bump stocks, there has not been a widespread outcry for them to remain legal, but there has been an outcry by some against them. Since the Vegas shooting, bump stocks, which were basically unheard of outside of the shooting world, suddenly became a big deal with the politicians who 'have to do something', so here we are. Now it will be up to a court as to whether banning them is legal, at least on the federal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top