ATF Taking Comments on Bump Stocks until Jan 25.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, added my comments to the mill. Personally, don't need one, don't want one. But I have a serious problem with the government allowing something to be legal for 15 years, and arbitrarily changing their mind and creating thousands or millions of felons overnight.
 
Last edited:
You might want to mention in your comments that if they open the registry for bump stocks, they should open the registry for everything (a Hughes amnesty, if you will). That seems to be the logical conclusion if they redefine bump stocks as machine guns, unless they are prepared to confiscate all of them.
 
Please note that in making your comments you are responding to a type of notice called an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The stated purpose of this ANPRM is:

This ANPRM is intended to gather relevant information that is otherwise not readily available to ATF regarding the scope and nature of the market for bump stock type devices. Because ATF does not have the authority to regulate firearm parts and accessories, ATF does not know, with the exception of one well-known manufacturer, how many of the individuals or companies that received classification letters from ATF ever engaged in commercial production and distribution of these devices. Similarly, ATF does not know how many companies or individuals who did not submit bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations are now engaging or have previously been engaged in this business. Further, the individuals and companies who submitted bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations identified some specific target markets for such devices, such as individuals with disabilities, but ATF does not have any information about whether those markets or other markets ultimately materialized for the devices. Consequently, ATF seeks the following information:

Please note that if your comments are not responsive to the questions being asked in the ANPRM, the costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory change or the methodology of computing those costs and benefits, they will be included in the list of the 3,000+ comments already received, but will not actually be considered by the agency in formulating the regulation.

The ANPRM specifically asks questions directed at manufacturers or retailers, but there are three directed towards consumers, so unless you're a manufacturer or retailer of bump stocks you will probably want to focus on responding to these questions.

Consumers
21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

Consider carefully what you are going to say before you write it down because it could get taken up by the drafters of the regulation.
 
AlexanderA wrote:
You might want to mention in your comments that if they open the registry for bump stocks, they should open the registry for everything (a Hughes amnesty, if you will).

No, you shouldn't. None of the questions specifically asked have anything to do with the registry. Such a comment, being non-responsive, would not be considered by the people actually drafting the regulation.
 
Mauser Lover wrote:
commented... Hope they read it!

Your comment will be read. It may be read multiple times. The first time it is read, it will be by a $12 an hour staffer who is looking to see if your comments addressed the items Section III of the ANPRM (scroll down from the comment box) asked be addressed. If not, that is as far as your comment will go since it was not responsive to the request.

Comments that are actually responsive to what the ANPRM asked to be addressed (i.e. the 23 questions, the costs and benefits or regulation and the methodology of computing those costs and benefits) will be passed on to either attorneys who are drafting the regulation or if the material is technical in nature to the technical specialists who assist the attorneys with matters of engineering, economics and the like.

It is important to note that it is during these public comment solicitations that you are about as close as it gets to influencing how your government works. You can contact your Congressman directly, but he/she serves 435,000 other people with divergent interests. Here, there are 3,000+ comments. And the vast majority are going to be from people who write in saying bump stocks are great and that will be as far as their comment goes. Maybe 10% of the respondents will actually address what the ANPRM asked them to address. And it is those comments that will be read directly by the attorneys and their technical advisors who are going to actually draft the regulation. So, at the end of the day, between ignorance of the process, lack of interest or failure to read the directions before spouting off, maybe no more than 300 or 400 people are going to have any influence in that the resulting regulation says.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I did read the questions that they wanted to be answered. I hope I answered them satisfactorily. I didn't just rant, at least as far as I could tell.
 
Such a comment, being non-responsive, would not be considered by the people actually drafting the regulation.
The whole issue here is whether to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. That's the crux, stated in simple terms. Pointing out the adverse consequences of such a reclassification is entirely relevant and responsive.

Comments in such an early stage of the proceedings are expected to be wide-ranging. The "questions" in the ANPRM are not straitjackets, and are more in the nature of suggestions. They're open-ended. The agency, at this stage, is trying to get a general sense of the public reaction, and gather information.

I agree that we should avoid rants, and keep our comments well-reasoned and specific.
 
As hdwit has pointed out, we need to understand what this comment submission is for, what our comments must focus on and what format they must be in.

Let's not throw away an opportunity to make relevant and compelling comments to the BATFE by jumping the gun and going off half cocked. Please read the below carefully and make a short and compelling argument against rulemaking treating this, or any other "accessories" as a machine gun regulated part.

SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition. Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq., and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), as amended, 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.[1] The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing these laws to the Director of ATF subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130. Regulations in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 implement the GCA and NFA.

The NFA defines “machinegun” as 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 also includes “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 Start Printed Page 60930combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

The GCA defines “machinegun” by reference to the NFA definition. The GCA regulates the transfer and possession of machineguns under 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Section 922(o) makes it unlawful for any person to possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the section or is under the authority of the federal government or a state.

Those engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in NFA firearms must be registered with the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 5801, 5802. When the NFA was enacted in 1934, only a handful of firearms qualified as machineguns, such as the Thompson submachine gun. Over time, however, as firearms technologies have advanced, manufacturers and the public have attempted to develop firearms, triggers, and other devices that permit shooters to use semiautomatic rifles to replicate automatic fire without converting these rifles into “machineguns” within the meaning of the statute. Consequently, questions have arisen about whether these types of devices should be classified as machineguns (or machinegun conversion devices) pursuant to section 5845(b). See, e.g., Internal Revenue Ruling 55-528 (1955) (considering whether types of “Gatling Guns” constitute machineguns); ATF Ruling 2006-2 (examining a firearms accessory device that, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiated an automatic firing cycle that continued until release).



ATF has issued a number of private letters to individuals and manufacturers who voluntarily submitted such devices for classification under the NFA and GCA. In addition, ATF has promulgated a regulation that defines “machinegun,” See 28 CFR 478.11, but that regulation mirrors the statutory language of the NFA and GCA and provides no further interpretation.


II. Las Vegas Music Festival Attack and Requests To Regulate Bump Stock-Type Devices
“Bump fire” stocks (bump stocks) are devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to increase the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic nearly continuous automatic fire. Since 2008, ATF has issued a total of 10 private letters in which it classified various bump stock devices to be unregulated parts or accessories, and not machineguns or machinegun conversion devices as defined in section 5845(b) of the NFA or section 921(a)(23) of the GCA.

On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and several hundred were wounded in Las Vegas, Nevada, by a shooter firing one or more AR-type rifles affixed with a particular bump stock device. In 2010, the manufacturer of this particular device had supplied ATF with a sample of the bump stock, and ATF had examined and classified it as an unregulated firearm part, not subject to either the GCA or NFA.

Following the Las Vegas shooting, a significant amount of public attention has been focused on bump stock-type devices. ATF has received correspondence from the general public and from members of both houses of Congress requesting that ATF re-examine its past classification decisions concerning bump stock devices to determine whether they should be classified as machineguns within the meaning of section 5845(b). This ANPRM is the initial step in a regulatory process to interpret the definition of machinegun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. If, in a subsequent rulemaking, the definition of machinegun under section 5845(b) is interpreted to include certain bump stock devices, ATF would then have a basis to re-examine its prior classification and rulings. See Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009).

III. Requests for Public Input
This ANPRM is intended to gather relevant information that is otherwise not readily available to ATF regarding the scope and nature of the market for bump stock type devices. Because ATF does not have the authority to regulate firearm parts and accessories, ATF does not know, with the exception of one well-known manufacturer, how many of the individuals or companies that received classification letters from ATF ever engaged in commercial production and distribution of these devices. Similarly, ATF does not know how many companies or individuals who did not submit bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations are now engaging or have previously been engaged in this business. Further, the individuals and companies who submitted bump stock type devices to ATF for voluntary classification determinations identified some specific target markets for such devices, such as individuals with disabilities, but ATF does not have any information about whether those markets or other markets ultimately materialized for the devices. Consequently, ATF seeks the following information:

Manufacturers
Are you, or have you been, involved in the manufacturing of bump stock devices? If so:

1. In what part(s) of the manufacturing process, are/were you involved?

2. In what calendar years are/were you involved in the manufacturing process?

3. What is the wholesale price of the bump stock devices produced by the manufacturing process with which you are involved?

4. In each calendar year in which you have operated, how many bump stock devices were produced by the manufacturing process with which you are/were involved? Of this number, how many devices were sold to (a) retailers/resellers, and (b) directly to consumers?

5. What were your approximate gross receipts for the sale of these bump stock devices in each calendar year (from 2014—present)?

6. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?

7. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your gross receipts for calendar year 2018?

8. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?

9. What costs do you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock device inventory?

10. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

Retailers
Are you, or have you been, involved in the retail sale of bump stock devices? If so:

11. In what calendar years are/were you involved?

12. In each calendar year, how many bump stock devices did you sell?

13. In each calendar year, what was the average retail price of the bump stock devices you sold?Start Printed Page 60931

14. In each calendar year (from 2014—present) what were your approximate gross receipts derived from the retail sale of bump stock devices?

15. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?

16. In the 2018 calendar year, how many bump stock devices do you anticipate you will sell, assuming that such devices remain classified by ATF as an unregulated firearm part? What do you expect will be the average price at which those bump stock devices will be sold?

17. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your costs/expenses, gross receipts for calendar year 2018?

18. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?

19. What costs do you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock device inventory?

20. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

Consumers
21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review
This ANPRM has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

The Department has determined that this ANPRM is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this ANPRM has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this action does not propose or impose any requirements. The ANPRM is being published to seek information from the public about the practical impacts of interpreting the statutory definition of “machinegun” such that certain bump stock type devices may fall under that definition.

Furthermore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply to this action because, at this stage, it is an ANPRM and not a “rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the comments received in response to this ANPRM, if ATF proceeds with a notice or notices of proposed rulemaking regarding this matter, ATF will conduct all relevant analyses as required by statute or Executive Order.

V. Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on this ANPRM from all interested persons with information about the enumerated questions. ATF specifically requests comments on the questions listed above, on the costs or benefits of the proposal in this ANPRM, and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Each commenter or commenting party should include the identifying number of the specific question(s) to which it is responding. ATF does not expect commenters to respond to every question; please feel free to respond only to those questions you feel you are able to answer.

All comments must reference the docket number 2017R-22, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.



ATF will take into account, as appropriate, the comments received on or before the closing date, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments.


D. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method).

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: We strongly recommend that you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal. Visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA wrote:
Pointing out the adverse consequences of such a reclassification is entirely relevant and responsive.

Comments in such an early stage of the proceedings are expected to be wide-ranging.

Sorry, but if the ATF wanted wide-ranging responses, they would have asked for them.

They did not. They specifically asked that one or more of 23 specific questions be answered as well as comments regarding cost and benefits of the reclassification and methods for measuring those costs and benefits.

Anything else will be considered non-responsive and will not be advanced to the people charged with writing the proposed regulation.
 
Mauser Lover wrote:
I hope I answered them satisfactorily. I didn't just rant, at least as far as I could tell.

The wonderful thing about the rule-making process is that any comment relevant to the request is passed on the drafters and they have to consider it. They can consider it and decide to ignore it and so long as their reviewer (i.e. supervisor) concurs that their reason for ignoring it is valid, it gets ignored, but it at least has to be taken up and considered before it can be ignored - that's part of why the regulatory process moves as slow as it does.
 
Please note that in making your comments you are responding to a type of notice called an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The stated purpose of this ANPRM is:



Please note that if your comments are not responsive to the questions being asked in the ANPRM, the costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory change or the methodology of computing those costs and benefits, they will be included in the list of the 3,000+ comments already received, but will not actually be considered by the agency in formulating the regulation.

The ANPRM specifically asks questions directed at manufacturers or retailers, but there are three directed towards consumers, so unless you're a manufacturer or retailer of bump stocks you will probably want to focus on responding to these questions.



Consider carefully what you are going to say before you write it down because it could get taken up by the drafters of the regulation.

Glad you pointed this out. I know this will shock everyone here.....but I have a tendency to be somewhat long winded and rambling...lol
 
The primary question they ask is financial impact. Inventory, sales, inventory, $$$. I hardly believe that they (gov) are asking that to receive answers that show, financial burden therefore no regulation change. More likely gauging compensatory ($$) if the items are....removed.

So yes I'll answer the questions, but will also add comments. Perhaps even in a 2nd letter to the provided address. If they do /do not read it all, that's their affair
 
So yes I'll answer the questions, but will also add comments. Perhaps even in a 2nd letter to the provided address. If they do /do not read it all, that's their affair
Yes. I agree completely. Don't let the opportunity go to waste to address the elephant in the room: what happens at the end of this process? Do they proceed to confiscation (post-1986 machine guns are contraband) or do they try to do some type of grandfathering -- or do they do nothing? The subsidiary questions about the commercial market for these devices are mostly irrelevant.
 
I personally think the bump stock is a pretty dumb device. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think you should have one. Someone with Bad intentions would be a lot better off just converting to full auto.
I wish I knew what happened in Vegas. Why would someone that’s going to commit a felony use a legal (seriously inferior) method of making a weapon “automatic”? Unless of course it was for political gain.
 
The wording of the regulation will be critical. The proposed regulation is wide open to interpretation. The NRA apparently isn't speaking up about it either.

M
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top