DOJ: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Intox

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2017
Messages
95
Location
Dothan, AL
The draft suggests the meaning of the word “machinegun” has been in flux for decades, and needs to be revisited:

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.

DOJ Document: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2017-27898.pdf
 
Interesting, and somewhat strange. This purports to be an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking but does not include any proposed regulatory language. It's more or less a fishing expedition, trawling for information. Still, this process seems to be going faster than expected. It's going in the direction of expanding the definition of "machine gun" to include things like bump fire stocks. That contradicts the statutory definition and is sure to draw lawsuits challenging it. If it stands, given the Hughes Amendment, it would mean that all bump fire stocks would be contraband, with no possibility of grandfathering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top