Surprise! It's NOT Just Bump Stocks (Ban Announcement)...

Status
Not open for further replies.
So by all means, let's strip away the blather. The vast bulk of the notice of proposed rule making consists of background, explanation, and justification. But the actual proposed regulation is merely an amendment to several existing regulations (27 CFR 447.11, 27 CFR 478.11, and 27 CFR 479.11) defining "machinegun." The amendment merely adds the following to each of those definitions:

That is how the ATF is proposing to change exiting regulations.
Well Frank, I thought, "that's probably news worthy enough for its own thread."


What do you want to bet that BATFE will try and ban that Keltec shotgun with twin magazine tubes? It holds 5 in each tube plus 1 in the chamber - 11 shots total. AND it is a PUMP GUN, not a semi !
That would be our "pro-gun" president & attorney general, if anyone; Trump could easily ban dual-tube shotties as a Destructive Device class with a penstroke, just as Clinton did with drum-fed autoloader shotguns in the 90's. Anything with a bore size over .50" only exists due to a Sporting Purposes exception. KSGs are notoriously bad for clays games, after all, and are too heavy for upland birding. Normally, I'd say I don't see Sessions going along with this...but he did just try to lay the groundwork for the next administration to ban all semi-autos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the bump-stock ban goes into effect, it will probably cost lives. Aimed fire is more deadly.
 
You fight fire with fire by fighting the initial legislation that cause you to have to circumvent the current law. It’s stupid to go fight for something that is a work around to a law.

Every time you poke the Liberals by circumventing a law with something that can be seen as controversial they think they need to beef up said law. So we go fight to keep the crappy not even second best device used for a work around while they fight to add to initial law to shut it down. That’s stupid. They win either way. Go for the initial law that caused the need to work around it. Be proactive not reactive.

This bump stock BS is causing my AR15 unwanted attention and I don’t like it. Go fight for machine gun parts kits mfg,if that was legalized the trigger kit and tax stamp should be similar to what a bump stock runs today and worth the 6-8 month wait.

Up next will be the “solvent trap adapter” it’s only a matter of time before some idiot uses one for malicious activity and the Left is giving my suppressor unwanted attention.
So, you think we should be trying to repeal the NFA outright, huh? Lemme guess, you know all about Hollis v. Holder/Lynch, right? How much credence was given to all the carefully crafted arguments in the end by the judges? Rapid fire scares people, and all semi-autos can rapidly fire. Those are the only facts most folks are operating on. Previously, they had to make do with being scared, since the ATF told them that 'machineguns' were a specific, mechanical thing, clearly defined and discrete from semi-automatics. The president just ordered the DOJ/ATF to try blurring that line. If successful, it can only lead to a general ban on semi-automatic trigger systems (anything with a mechanical disconnector preventing hammer follow, along the same lines as earlier bans on safety sears and open-bolt designs)

"We" poke the "liberals" every time we continue to possess our guns. They are prodded every time we shoot one at a target or clay. Our ownership of standard capacity magazines is highly irksome. If they see a gun on our hip in person, many have such a strong psychosomatic fear response they become physically ill (that's what they claim, anyway). You propose we protect our freedoms by not 'circumventing' a law by following it to the letter. You propose we willingly forgo rapid fire of semi-automatics (and I guess the anti's will determine what 'rapid' means, too).

If you don't like the attention, sell your AR15 & silencer to someone who's willing to defend it. At least that way it won't be completely wasted. Trump already went after solvent trap makers, very early in his administration his ATF made examples of a few. The first of many assaults on our second amendment rights, to be sure. Likely you don't think homebrew silencers should be allowed either, seeing as if it's possible to do with a tax stamp it's even easier to do without one, and you fear "some idiot" choosing to do something bad with one. You'd do well to disabuse yourself of any notions of individuals forgoing business opportunities or activities within the law for their own amusement, all so you can feel more comfortable in your anonymity as a gun owner; that's even more ridiculous than the anti's attempts to control the same by way of restrictive laws.

The NRA is not, won't be, and never has been in favor of legalized machine guns, or apparently, even rapid fire. The MG hostility is well known to anyone who pays attention, but the eagerness to tie the AR15s they had more or less finally won grudging acceptance for from our politicians to actual machine guns by their bump fire stance
 
If the bump-stock ban goes into effect, it will probably cost lives. Aimed fire is more deadly.
We can always hope it won't...but that's rather naive given how dedicated the folks in Florida were to ensuring Cruz had the opportunity to do "something"

The only way an auto-loader can't be bump fired is if the trigger is lousy enough; I sure hope we can get all the Fudds & target shooters out there to realize that their precious 'non-mag-dumping-idiot carefully aimed sportsman fire' is what's actually on the chopping block.
 
Oh man......Jerry Miculec isn't going to like having his trigger fingers amputated one little bit. Come to think of it, ANY of us already own what we need to 'increase the rate of fire'...just pull the trigger faster. So in the end this only means they'll 'need' to eliminate the semi's because even a crappy one can fire as fast as the operator can run it. But then there are those deadly 'Assault Revolvers' that will no doubt become the 'gun of choice' for everything evil in the world. I saw an article the other day that went something like 'The Worlds 5 Most Deadly Revolvers'....really.:(
 
I did skim-read through all 55 pages of the proposal linked in my 2nd post way ^^ up there. Actually known as post#2. A whole lot of, we are gonna do this here's why, and then a wee lil' portion at the end 'if you want to comment , we might listen (bwahahaa)

Somewheres towards the end is a huge portion on how many bump stocks actually exist and if there is going to be any compensation for the end user having to destruct their personal property. I did not see where there is any actual $$ for ''Mr & Mrs America, turn 'em all in''

Also middle to end is impact , what will happen to people afterwards (after the kabuki theatre where people make good comments for nothing) and one of the options is, and the direct reference is made to comments from the previous comment period a short time ago; people have the option of using their belt loops, etc. , or simply learn how to manipulate the trigger.

Two take-aways thus far; I see where the ATF says it's ok to bumpfire, just not with a bump stock. And secondly whereas they directly state previous comments were without the scope of the previous comment period they also directly state that , in effect, those comments were productive.
 
Understand that it may not seem like an engineering definition of a machine gun or even Websters's, but the regulatory definition doesn't have to.

We must ensure that the comments sent in are focused on the impracticality, lack of regulatory effectiveness, impact to owners of existing devices being redefined as "machine guns", financial burden to the current owners who will have their accessories redefined as "machine guns", lack of ability of the regulatory agency to provide the resources to register these accessories as "machine guns", lack serial numbers to register, taking of private property in violation of law by criminalizing the possession of unregistered "machine guns" under this redifinition, AND that by redefining what is a machine gun, an agency is making new law that is reserved to the authority of the legislative branch.
 
Last edited:
You fight fire with fire by fighting the initial legislation that cause you to have to circumvent the current law. It’s stupid to go fight for something that is a work around to a law.

So are you opposed to a company manufacturing firearms and/or accessories that comply to new laws?

Because that’s exactly what’s happened, and it happens ALL the time in California. This is about so much more than a bump stock... it’s about who gets to decide if a firearm or an accessory that comply’s with the law can be banned. That’s what it seems you’re supporting.... will you still support it when they’re coming after a gun or accessory in your safe?
 
The NRA is not, won't be, and never has been in favor of legalized machine guns, or apparently, even rapid fire. The MG hostility is well known to anyone who pays attention, but the eagerness to tie the AR15s they had more or less finally won grudging acceptance for from our politicians to actual machine guns by their bump fire stance
This is one of my big gripes against the NRA: its willingness to throw machine gun owners under the bus. We saw this when the NRA went along with the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986, and more recently when Wayne LaPierre testified before Congress that "machine guns are already illegal." The NRA is only accepting of AR-15's and the like because there are so many of them, and their owners can't be ignored. Let's face it, even after the "Cincinnati reforms," the NRA is still a Fudd organization. This plays right into the antis' strategy of "divide and conquer."
 
So are you opposed to a company manufacturing firearms and/or accessories that comply to new laws?

Because that’s exactly what’s happened, and it happens ALL the time in California. This is about so much more than a bump stock... it’s about who gets to decide if a firearm or an accessory that comply’s with the law can be banned. That’s what it seems you’re supporting.... will you still support it when they’re coming after a gun or accessory in your safe?

Complying with new laws is different than making a blatant attempt to circumvent federal law. IT IS DIFFERENT and YOU ALL KNOW IT!
they have been controversial from day 1 and do nothing to preserve our freedom to bear arms.
Go do something to win back women, children, minorities and city folks. Then maybe we can pass some machine gun legislation that would improve the cost of owning one that would be useful instead of some spray and pray range toy novelty.
 
If you don't like the attention, sell your AR15 & silencer to someone who's willing to defend it. At least that way it won't be completely wasted. Trump already went after solvent trap makers, very early in his administration his ATF made examples of a few. The first of many assaults on our second amendment rights, to be sure. Likely you don't think homebrew silencers should be allowed either, seeing as if it's possible to do with a tax stamp it's even easier to do without one, and you fear "some idiot" choosing to do something bad with one. You'd do well to disabuse yourself of any notions of individuals forgoing business opportunities or activities within the law for their own amusement, all so you can feel more comfortable in your anonymity as a gun owner; that's even more ridiculous than the

What have you done for the 2A? Post a YouTube of a mag dump with a bump fire stock? Yell at people who actually have some common sense and can have a conversation with an Anti gun and convince them?
I carry a suppressed AR rifle every day in my truck. I’ve explained countless times in the last 2 years why I use it for a sporting and SHTF gun. I don’t think anyone has ever not understood my argument. I’ve helped several people start the process to own their own suppressor and demonstrated to at least 10 how it sounds to shoot one and that it’s a varmint control tool and to protect my hearing.

How would one argue to a 45 year old Democrat woman who is pro 2A but skeptical of stuff like AR’s that you need a bump stock?
“Because the 2A “ is not a valid argument to use against people who don’t support it.
You’d be shocked how many gun carrying rural Texans don’t even know you can legally own a suppressor much less hunt with one.

The left is out leading our children to be scared of guns. And we’re in here wanting to preserve some bump stock. Gosh we’re screwed.
 
Understand that it may not seem like an engineering definition of a machine gun or even Websters's, but the regulatory definition doesn't have to.

We must ensure that the comments sent in are focused on the impracticality, lack of regulatory effectiveness, impact to owners of existing devices being redefined as "machine guns", financial burden to the current owners who will have their accessories redefined as "machine guns", lack of ability of the regulatory agency to provide the resources to register these accessories as "machine guns", lack serial numbers to register, taking of private property in violation of law by criminalizing the possession of unregistered "machine guns" under this redifinition, AND that by redefining what is a machine gun, an agency is making new law that is reserved to the authority of the legislative branch.


They're coming from the angle of that theyre not redefining, they are clarifying.

Maybe a lawyer type can comment but I think that might make an important difference legally.

What they are doing is clarifying (in laymen terms) that a machine gun is a set of parts that achieve continuous fire and that in regards one trigger pull that there is a differenc between the finger pulling the trigger vs the finger remaining stationary and, by virtue of the set of parts as a whole, having the gun bump up against a stationary finger.


While I don't disagree with your suggestions, I'm afraid .Gov doesn't care right now.
 
Complying with new laws is different than making a blatant attempt to circumvent federal law. IT IS DIFFERENT and YOU ALL KNOW IT!
they have been controversial from day 1 and do nothing to preserve our freedom to bear arms.
Go do something to win back women, children, minorities and city folks. Then maybe we can pass some machine gun legislation that would improve the cost of owning one that would be useful instead of some spray and pray range toy novelty.
Circumventing existing laws with novel inventions or plain old non-compliance (like in Canada where their registration system was dismantled after massive non-compliance and enormous costs (*Link*)) is what helps put pressure on the government as it basically makes some of the existing laws pointless.

As for 'winning back minorities' changing demographics through higher birth rates and both legal and illegal immigration are one of the driving factors in changing attitudes on guns in this country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...l-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.ba5f45051083
 
Circumventing existing laws with novel inventions or plain old non-compliance (like in Canada where their registration system was dismantled after massive non-compliance and enormous costs (*Link*)) is what helps put pressure on the government as it basically makes some of the existing laws pointless.

As for 'winning back minorities' changing demographics through higher birth rates and both legal and illegal immigration are one of the driving factors in changing attitudes on guns in this country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...l-fall-its-inevitable/?utm_term=.ba5f45051083

I really don’t feel like we are in a posistion for that at the moment. The men on the red team in DC don’t even seem to support us deep down. That would be our only choice if they went for an all out ban on AR15’s though and I think the vast majority of folks would support that.
 
Would a person suffering from palsy be considered an auto-sear? Or if it
This is one of my big gripes against the NRA: its willingness to throw machine gun owners under the bus. We saw this when the NRA went along with the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986, and more recently when Wayne LaPierre testified before Congress that "machine guns are already illegal." The NRA is only accepting of AR-15's and the like because there are so many of them, and their owners can't be ignored. Let's face it, even after the "Cincinnati reforms," the NRA is still a Fudd organization. This plays right into the antis' strategy of "divide and conquer."
Though founded earlier, their NFA participation really is akin to an "original sin," that they have never quite been able to get past
 
One crowd says the NRA is not extreme enough in defending gun rights.
The anti-gun crowd says the NRA is too extreme in defending gun rights.

Anti-gun historians say the NRA blocked FDR's plans to ban handguns and put rifles and shotguns on the national firearms registry. LBJ had a hissy fit when NRA blocked the bill by Sen Joseph B. Tydings to set up a national registry of handguns, rifle and shotguns as part of what became the 1968 GCA. As a result, an anti-gun Congresscritter* asked the FBI to investigate the NRA as an unregistered lobby, in order to revoke its educational association tax status. NRA decided to form and register a formal lobbying arm separate from the educational association for gun owners. That ended the FBI investigation and the threat to the main NRA tax status. The separate lobby arm then worked to block Sen. Tydings' reelection. I am not so sure that the gun groups who attack NRA are really in a position to do better than NRA has done in protecting gun rights.

_______________________
*Thomas Dodd said "it wasn't me". Jacob Javits said "it wasn't me". Joseph Tydings neither conformed nor denied it was him, but is still bitter at the NRA.
 
.... and my response here was deleted as well just like on the firing line.

THIS is why I haven’t been here in a couple of months

It would be great if mods could stop micro managing a forum
I don’t post inflammatory remarks.
It's more important we remain calm, than actually convince other gunnowners there is a problem

They're coming from the angle of that theyre not redefining, they are clarifying.

Maybe a lawyer type can comment but I think that might make an important difference legally.

What they are doing is clarifying (in laymen terms) that a machine gun is a set of parts that achieve continuous fire and that in regards one trigger pull that there is a differenc between the finger pulling the trigger vs the finger remaining stationary and, by virtue of the set of parts as a whole, having the gun bump up against a stationary finger.


While I don't disagree with your suggestions, I'm afraid .Gov doesn't care right now.
I wonder if one could sue the DOJ based on Trump's tweet; he's stating he intends to ignore due process by implementing the change regardless of that pesky due process period. Taking the machineguns now, due process through the courts, later. If this were any kind of legal proceeding, that would be considered corruption of the process. But regs get to pretend they aren't laws even though they are enforced like laws, so maybe not.

I do know that Trump also ordered them to rush through the last comment period as quickly as possible, devoting all resources to it. An M855 "comment bomb" probably won't be as effective against this fool. Speaking of, we should brace ourselves for new regs on "cop killer AP" and dust off our arguments for the inevitable ban on common use 'assault bump fire' ammo.

Very disturbing language. Bump fire is okay, but bump fire is too dangerous to be legal? And we believe we can draw a distinction between stocks and stocks?

Pulling the trigger against a foregrip is acting as a return spring in a machinegun, but pulling the trigger against a pistol grip or shoulder is not? And we think we can regulate or control this via severe penalties?

The notion of human body parts being responsible for 'continuous fire' is very dangerous. It lays the groundwork for magazine and autoloader bans. They are attacking all rapid fire in general with this rule change.

This is why the ATF did not want to kick this hornet's nest (or was saving up the rule change for a compliant administration dedicated to administering the coup de grace to gun owners). Semi autos are 'the line' for many, many gun owners who have contemplated where their limit ends. We can't put it in the comments since feebs don't take us seriously, but massive non-compliance with ALL federal gun laws and likely some unrest will result from going down this path very far at all.
 
I wonder if one could sue the DOJ based on Trump's tweet; he's stating he intends to ignore due process by implementing the change regardless of that pesky due process period.


Possibly. His tweets have been cited in defeating his travel bans.

How much it actually influenced the ruling I don't know.
 
What have you done for the 2A? Post a YouTube of a mag dump with a bump fire stock? Yell at people who actually have some common sense and can have a conversation with an Anti gun and convince them?
I carry a suppressed AR rifle every day in my truck. I’ve explained countless times in the last 2 years why I use it for a sporting and SHTF gun. I don’t think anyone has ever not understood my argument. I’ve helped several people start the process to own their own suppressor and demonstrated to at least 10 how it sounds to shoot one and that it’s a varmint control tool and to protect my hearing.

How would one argue to a 45 year old Democrat woman who is pro 2A but skeptical of stuff like AR’s that you need a bump stock?
“Because the 2A “ is not a valid argument to use against people who don’t support it.
You’d be shocked how many gun carrying rural Texans don’t even know you can legally own a suppressor much less hunt with one.

The left is out leading our children to be scared of guns. And we’re in here wanting to preserve some bump stock. Gosh we’re screwed.
Because you cannot ban bump fire by banning a stock, amd you cannot ban bumo fire without banning semiauto.

"Pro gun Democrat woman" --now there's a small niche. Frankly, I'm more concerned with allegedly pro gun gun owners like yourself understanding what I posted above. Yes, Fudds still certainly abound, especiay ones that think because they own black plastic rifles they can't possibly be selling important segments of firearms down the river by supporting more restrictions. I imagine we heard the same thing from M1 Garand owners prior to the 94 AWB.
 
Possibly. His tweets have been cited in defeating his travel bans.

How much it actually influenced the ruling I don't know.
Ah, good point. Now we just need a Hawaiian judge willing to exceed his authority for gun onwers --now there's an even tinier niche, lol
 
I really don’t feel like we are in a posistion for that at the moment. The men on the red team in DC don’t even seem to support us deep down. That would be our only choice if they went for an all out ban on AR15’s though and I think the vast majority of folks would support that.
Precisely why we should rid ourselves of RINO's.

Revenge voting blocs have been pretty successful as of late.

You're advocating a delaying action of giving up a little at a time while hoping that they won't inconvenience you personally in your lifetime. Sorry, but I'm not on board with that.
 
Complying with new laws is different than making a blatant attempt to circumvent federal law. IT IS DIFFERENT and YOU ALL KNOW IT!
they have been controversial from day 1 and do nothing to preserve our freedom to bear arms.

I do not see the difference, even if you write in caps that I do.

Please explain the legal difference to me. Either something is complies with the law or it does not... right ?
 
They're coming from the angle of that theyre not redefining, they are clarifying.

Maybe a lawyer type can comment but I think that might make an important difference legally.

What they are doing is clarifying (in laymen terms) that a machine gun is a set of parts that achieve continuous fire and that in regards one trigger pull that there is a differenc between the finger pulling the trigger vs the finger remaining stationary and, by virtue of the set of parts as a whole, having the gun bump up against a stationary finger.


While I don't disagree with your suggestions, I'm afraid .Gov doesn't care right now.

I would agree if the longstanding definition of what constitutes a MG were not very specific and focused on "shots per single function of the trigger". This does not account for external means of pulling the trigger faster. And it probably should but we should not just allow the bureaucracy to contradict existing Code.

As much as we feel for those who have a direct stake in the issue, the bigger issue is proper legislative and regulatory procedures.

Why resist making the change legislatively anyway? If it is what "everyone" wants and is a foregone conclusion, what's the problem with doing it properly? I think we've gotten too used to bald-faced lies, sloppy procedures and government crime with no accountability.

We are overwhelmed by a flood of corruption. Accepting the bureaucratic re-definition is essentially throwing our hands up and saying "Whatever, do what you want!".
 
Oh! Now its de-evolved to, if its ''connnnntroversial'':alien:.

I '' think'' silencers are connnntroversial. Hopefully for some parties here, no NUT JOB in the future mass kills a herd of beef livestock, using a silencer. And then, the kids didn't know what to do. And then , there will be a a 2000% (D) sponsored rally ''Make them Make Noise Again'' '' I will never hear Bessy MOoOo Again''

And then in the analogy, the guitar being retuned,:neener: plays differently....

We are all in all for one & one for all, :fire:or not. Each person's particular flavor is irrelavent.


''But but, but....'' after but comes stink as the ol' say'n goes
 
It would be expected they would try to stay ahead of things like "trigger cranks" and gadgets like the ones in this article ...
https://gizmodo.com/this-trigger-happy-glove-lets-you-simulate-machine-gun-1797434487

How can you soft-peddle the intent of simulating full-auto fire when you name something "the AutoGlove"?


As long as innovators keep trying to find cute ways to "get around" existing NFA law by finding ways to achieve the same end result - meaning sustained rapid fire which the normal user couldn't ever come close to replicating just by quickly pressing & releasing a semi-auto trigger - we're going to see at least 2 things happen.

One ... some number of irresponsible owners will do stupid things with the gadgets, and people will be injured or killed, and the property of other private persons, or the "public" will be damaged or destroyed. If enough of those instances occur, the public will demand action.

Two ... some very small number of people will intentionally use it for deliberate criminal acts and violence. If even a few such instances happen (and especially involving another night club, hotel/music venue, or a school), people will DEMAND something "be done".

The general description that was used when CA legislated against such devices several years ago was "multiburst trigger activators". Even though CA DOJ has stated that bump stocks fall within the existing description, a legislator has introduced a new bill that would amend the existing language to specifically add language using the term bump stock.

When firearm-related "novelties" (bump stocks, trigger cranks, etc) start to help hurt or kill people, by either user negligence or deliberate act, other people get scared. Scared people rush to "do something".

Too bad that common sense is uncommon, huh?

I love watching the guy 'use' a trigger crank in a video in that article ... I wonder if any ducks or other low-flying birds were scared away during the filming ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top