Proposed Federal Rules Regarding Bump Stocks

[SKILCZ]

Proposed rules released March 29th in the Federal Register. PDF Here.

The nutshell is that they want to classify:

‘‘bump fire’’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

To comment, go to this section for instructions:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number ATF
2017R–22, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
directions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 648–9741.
• Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 6N–518,
Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Enforcement Programs and Services,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE,
Washington DC 20226. ATTN: 2017R–
22.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice of
proposed rulemaking. All properly
completed comments received will be
posted without change to the Federal
eRulemaking portal, http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.

 

[coloradokevin]

I would sincerely recommend that everyone gives that proposed rule making issue a full read. It's a long document, but I think we can each craft our responses based on some of the things said in that document alone.

I've only given it a cursory glance so far, but intend to go back and read it in more depth before submitting my comment. But, there are some interesting things included in that document: First, the ATF even acknowledges that a belt loop or rubber band can be used to do the same thing. They also talk about the difference between today's bump stocks, and ones like the Akins Accelerator that had springs (and was thereby found to be a "machine-gun").

A bump stock does not create a machine-gun based on how the law reads, and I think it's important that we focus our comments on that fact. A bump stock also does NOT, in my opinion, function as this document says:

QUOTE: "When a bump-stock-type device is affixed to a semiautomatic firearm, however, the device harnesses the recoil energy to slide the firearm back and forth so that the trigger automatically re-engages by “bumping” the shooter's stationary trigger finger without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. The bump-stock-type device functions as a self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's extension ledge (as designed). No further physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter is required."


I think this is VERY important to note, because a bump stock really doesn't "harness" anything. When shooting (right-handed) with a bump stock, your left hand is pushing forward on the fore-end of the firearm, moving the trigger against your finger, but not so much so that you're overcoming the force of recoil. Any energy in this system (other than the rearward force of recoil) is directly introduced by the shooter himself. Thus, recoil pushes the firearm back (like you experience with any firearm), and the shooter (in this case) pushes it back forward using their off-hand on the fore-end. The device absolutely isn't acting as a "self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm's recoil energy". In fact, it's little more than a loose stock, at its core. As such, if a bump stock was put into "bump fire" mode, and set in a machine rest, with a mechanically actuated trigger, it would not fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. The increased rate of fire is directly introduced by the shooter, who is constantly manipulating the firearm manually. Without this manipulation, the firearm wouldn't fire again. One trigger pull equates to one bullet leaving the rifle, with or without this attachment.

Hopefully comments are being sent from folks within the gun industry as well. Whether or not you like or want a bump stock, these items should not be regulated, and we should not give up ground on this issue. This is a very dangerous slippery slop in my opinion, which could ultimately impact the production of competition triggers, and other such devices.

Incidentally, the ATF estimates in this document that the Total Quantified Costs to Industry, Public, and Government for the implementation of this change is around $217 Million over the next ten years, whereas the unquantified benefit is potentially reducing the criminal use of bump stocks (which as far as I know have been used in just one crime). So, I also think we can attack this issue from an angle of pointing out that a $217 Million cost for the sake of preventing one crime is too great of a cost for too little benefit.

 

[SKILCZ]

Gun Owners of America has made an easy copy & paste response along with a link to submit comments on the proposed bump stock regulations here. If you click the "speak up now" button, it will bring you to the federal comment submission form here (click here if you want to bypass GOA's site or copy and paste this URL directly).

Here is the GOA canned response. You can simply copy and paste or edit it.

I am opposed to any regulation on bump stocks.

These proposed regulations would declare a “bump stock” to be a machinegun because it allows the gun to fire more than one shot “by a single PULL of the trigger” -- that is, by a single volitional function of the finger.

But federal law, at 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a part as a “machinegun” ONLY if it is designed solely and exclusively to allow the gun to “fire more than one shot ... by a single FUNCTION of the trigger.”

To state the obvious, a finger is not the same thing as a trigger. And, while a bump stock is in operation, the trigger functions separately every time a round is discharged.

So these regulations are proposing a radical change -- as they effectively define a gun as a machinegun even if the trigger resets for every round that is fired, so long as the finger only pulls the trigger once.

While bump stock devices will now be treated as machineguns under these regulations, they also raise serious questions in regard to AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles -- as they are now on the brink of being designated as machineguns by the next anti-gun administration.

In the past, one had to fundamentally change the firing mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm to convert it into a fully automatic firearm.

But now according to these regulations, a bump stock is a machinegun -- and it can "readily restore" a semi-auto into a machinegun, simply because the gun owner can effectively fire the weapon continuously with a “single pull” of the trigger. This would invoke the statutory definition for a rifle, which is classified as a machinegun (26 USC 5845(b)).

It won’t matter that a gun which is being bump fired has not been fundamentally altered. AR-15s will be on the brink of extinction once these regulations go into force.

These regulations dismiss Second Amendment protections, by appealing to the Heller court decision. But the Constitution trumps the Supreme Court -- so when the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” any limitation of the right for law-abiding citizens should be treated as unconstitutional.