ATF to re-examine whether "bump-stocks" and "other devices" are machine guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bushpilot

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
1,115
The ATF and the DOJ are currently deciding whether "bump- stocks" and "similar devices" fall under the definition of "machine guns." Regardless of what your thoughts are on "bump-stocks," I believe that this is an issue that should concern us all for at least two reasons. One, being the inclusion of "triggers and other devices" that could potentially be argued increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm. The second being the ever present issue of the "slippery slope". Depending on how broad a definition the ATF adopts this could at some point even be interpreted to include a wide variety of things such as reduced weight/travel target triggers. We should petition the ATF to maintain the definition of machinegun and semi-auto as they presently are; a machinegun fires multiple shots with a singe pull of the trigger and a semi-auto fires one shot for each pull of the trigger. The comment period ends on January 25, 2018. A link to the web page is included at the bottom.

AGENCY:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

ACTION:
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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.

DATES:
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.

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).........................


https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...to-bump-fire-stocks-and-other-similar-devices
 
Last edited:
There is already an active post on this in the Activism forum:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ump-stocks-until-jan-25.831079/#post-10731756

Please read the entire explanation below the comment box - it is long - and note that the ATF is asking for comments with regard to 23 specific questions (only 3 of which relate to consumers) along with the costs and benefits of a reclassification as well as how those benefits should be measured. That is all.
  • "Triggers and other devices",
  • The "Slippery slope",
  • The fact you think Bump Stocks are Peachy,
  • And the like,
are not within the scope of the comments the ATF is seeking through this ANPRM. Comments that are not responsive to the request the ATF is making are not going to be forwarded to the attorneys and their technical advisors that are working on the proposed regulation. So, please don't waste this opportunity to get pertinent information in front of people who will actually be drafting the regulations by submitting something irrelevant.
 
Thanks hdwhit for the arrogant manner in which you informed me of my post location error and for characterizing my well intended post and opinions as "irrelevant." The items you quoted from my post were examples of why this issue could eventually effect all of us, not arguments or reasons to submit to the ATF as to why bumpstocks should remain legal, although I think they should.

My sincere apologies to all (save one) for posting an apparently redundant post or for posting in the wrong section. I did a search for recent posts on bumpstocks prior to posting and didn't see the previous one. Regardless of whether or not the ATF wants to hear opinions from mere "consumers" (I'm a citizen not just a consumer), I do think we all have some stake in the outcome of this issue whether or not we own bumpstocks (which I do not) or think bumpstocks are "Peachy." I also maintain that the inclusion of "triggers and other devices" represents a potential danger.
 
Last edited:
Seems kind of too late for this. How many of them are out there? I know a couple of people who just bought them because they were cheap and thought they would be fun.
 
Seems kind of too late for this. How many of them are out there? I know a couple of people who just bought them because they were cheap and thought they would be fun.

The panic over bumps stops seems stupid to me. But an excellent play by the anti-gun nuts.
They’ve managed to take device that’s fairly useless and leverage it to include “other devices”. These are the people that forced heavy triggers on us to “protect the children”.

I don’t know about anyone else here but I’m an AMERICAN. I believe in freedom and liberty. And I’m sick of laws to protect stupid people from themselves. If people want to go without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets, or play with dangerous things then let them accept the responsibility for their actions.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m for the “collective good” but that’s in a broad sense, as in national defense, or good schools to educate our young. But that s another rant.

What I guess bugs me the most is the timing of this. Does anyone else think it was too much of a coincidence that Vegas happened right as we were picking up steam and getting close to national conceal carry, and turning from defense to offense.
 
Last edited:
After listening to bona fide EXPERT, I now believe there is an secondary motive to the bumpstock issue...



Comment period ends today
I do not expect ppl to comment on bumpstocks due to low ownership #s. I do however expect ppl to comment on rate of fire changes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top