bumpstock ban process

Elkins45 said:

You have this all wrong. The precedent being set is that the plain and clear meaning of words can be redefined at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. If they can redefine what “single function of the trigger” means then they can also redefine what “ammunition feeding device” or “centerfire metallic cartridge” means as well.

We will be playing poker with a deck of erasable cards.

Click to expand...

This regulation hinges on the definition of a "single function of the trigger." In the next Administration, the fate of semiautomatics, and in particular of the AR-15, will rest on the definition of "readily convertible" to fully automatic. The exact technical issues may be different, but the overarching principle that is being established here is that a long-standing policy can be reversed on a whim. They're going to say that any AR-15 can be converted to fully automatic in a few minutes (or hours, it doesn't matter) in a machine shop. Under the 1968 amendments to the 1934 NFA, that would make it a machine gun, regardless of whether it can currently shoot automatically.. If it wasn't registered as such with the ATF by May 19, 1986, then it would be contraband and there would be no provision that would allow grandfathering or compensation. If this regulation is allowed to stand, that's the situation that we will be facing in a few years. Folks, this is not about bump stocks. I don't care anything about bump stocks, but I do care about keeping my AR-15's and other semiautomatics.

DeepSouth said:

Another question that has come to my mind (especially after reading AlaxanderA’s post #26) is, if this does infact hold up what, if any, affect will it have own actual legal precedent.

I understand political precedent is a thing, and no doubt a thing we should be concerned about. But what legal ramifications could this actually impact down the road, it seems to me the only thing it could affect is other executive branch changes, which is a big deal by itself. But what else could be affected.

Sorry about all the questing, I’m just a country boy trying to figure all this out.

Click to expand...

Depends on what court it makes it to I guess. It seems to me that it will probably come down to how much deference the regulatory bodies enjoy in interpreting statutes and rules, much like how Kisor v. Wilkie (recent cert grant at scotus) challenges Cheveron and Auer deference. Kisor is a case about VA benefits and what constitutes relevant injuries.

Also, consider the attempted ban on green-tip (m855) 5.56 ammo. The ammo did not meet the plain English definition of armor piercing (one could argue about it being a pistol caliber or not too), but the ATF was on the path of classifying it as such anyways.

MachIVshooter said:

I would honestly prefer that the ban doesn't get overturned/nullified. The precedent of the way it was gone about I don't like, but the ban itself is really a good thing for RKBA in the long game. Think about it; these things were destined to become contraband one way or another. Would we rather it happen with no collateral damage as it has, or do we want to roll the dice on what sort of broader anti-gun legislation will come through a Democrat house and squishy republican senate next month? With bump stocks already off the table, there is far less momentum & public support for further gun control.

Click to expand...

I don't see this ban affecting gun ban/control efforts at all, except possibly to encourage the dems to go for more since the President has signed on to THIS law. Pelosi is already talking about new "gun safety" laws.
Thank G-d the repubs have the senate!

Tommygunn said:

I don't see this ban affecting gun ban/control efforts at all, except possibly to encourage the dems to go for more since the President has signed on to THIS law. Pelosi is already talking about new "gun safety" laws.
Thank G-d the repubs have the senate!

Click to expand...

You are thinking narrowly about legislation. It's true that as long as Republicans control the Senate (which they are likely to do even after the 2020 election), antigun bills are unlikely to get out of Congress.

However, what we're talking about here with this bump stock ban is executive action. As soon as a Democrat wins the presidency, he could order the ATF to reclassify AR-15's as machine guns, based on being "readily convertible" to full automatic. Then, as they were not registered as machine guns by May 19, 1986, they would be contraband and subject to seizure without compensation. All the various parts of this would be in place, based on the bump stock precedent. That's why it must be challenged and overturned in the courts now. If it stands, we're done for.

Still haven't seen this published on the federal register or list of EAs. Still too early in the workday?

AlexanderA said:

You are thinking narrowly about legislation. It's true that as long as Republicans control the Senate (which they are likely to do even after the 2020 election), antigun bills are unlikely to get out of Congress.

However, what we're talking about here with this bump stock ban is executive action. As soon as a Democrat wins the presidency, he could order the ATF to reclassify AR-15's as machine guns, based on being "readily convertible" to full automatic. Then, as they were not registered as machine guns by May 19, 1986, they would be contraband and subject to seizure without compensation. All the various parts of this would be in place, based on the bump stock precedent. That's why it must be challenged and overturned in the courts now. If it stands, we're done for.

Click to expand...

They could do that regardless. They ARE going to try to ban AR-15s no matter what -- Pelosi has said so. And it won't be like 1994 - 2004, it WILL be a "turn 'em all in" type of ban.

I never said this executive decision should not be challenged in court. It SHOULD be and I think a well designed and executed challenge stands a good chance given how this was done and how machineguns are defined.

I've said before I do not either care for, or like, or own bumpstocks. But I stand opposed to antigun laws.
It's a principle type of thing.

As a point of principle, I think the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional. I'd like to see it repealed.
But that doesn't mean, in the real world we live in, it will be repealed. It would be a tough fight to accomplish it and truthfully, for the next few years atleast, we're going to be in the need of devoting our all to defeating proposed antigun measures.....if we succeed, then we will need to win the hearts and minds of Mr. and Ms. Joe Sixpack in America if we are going to go farther.

Any president can do something via exec. order. Obama started this in his administration when congress would not go along with him. I was very surprised he did nothing, or atleast nothing BIG, about gun control through E. O. during that time.
Now Trump is reversing much of Obama's legacy the same way ..... and, hey, when "my guy" does it I'm all on board!
But these exec orders do pose a serious question for America; for the sake of our representative republic and the balance of power, should we really want presidents to continue to rule by fiat, even presidents we like?
A looming question for America, affecting much more than gun rights ......

The further we get away from the Constitution (Executive Orders, "Nuclear Option", etc.) the more precarious is our freedom. We applaud the use of these extra-Constitutional tactics when "our guy" is using them, not realizing that what goes around comes around.

Tommygunn said:

Any president can do something via exec. order. Obama started this in his administration when congress would not go along with him. I was very surprised he did nothing, or atleast nothing BIG, about gun control through E. O. during that time.

Click to expand...

The executive actions of a President (Executive Orders, regulations, etc.) can be disapproved by Congress. The President can veto such a disapproval, which veto can then be overridden by a 2/3 vote of each House. Remember that after 2010, the Republicans controlled Congress and would have given Obama a hard time if he had tried to do something big against guns.

Assuming the Democrats keep control of the House (regardless of what happens in the Senate), a Democratic President could do just about anything he wanted in attacking certain guns by regulation. The whole political calculation will be very different from what it was in the early years of Obama. After the Trump experience, the pro-gun side will have very much diminished clout. Part of that has to do with the NRA going all-in with the Republicans, and with Trump personally.

AlexanderA said:

That isn't the issue any more. The issue is the bad precedent that will apply across the board. I think we may see a rallying of conservative judges, the kind appointed by Trump at the behest of the Federalist Society, against this. That would be ironic.

Click to expand...

Why doesn’t the DOJ just ban the weapon that the bump stock is attached to? You could use the same modified ruling and you could keep the stock. It takes both units to tango....

saltydog said:

Why doesn’t the DOJ just ban the weapon that the bump stock is attached to? You could use the same modified ruling and you could keep the stock. It takes both units to tango....

Click to expand...

You're kidding! Ban assault rifles ----- er, semi auto sporting rifles?



You know they're trying their hardest to do that. The bumpstock is a part that is easily removed and replaced with a normal stock. If the owner has discarded the normal stock, Academy Sports sells stocks that are likely better quality than the original stock. Why would they take the gun when they have BANNED the BUMPSTOCK??????

Unless you simply want a ban on AR style rifles your suggestion is .... well, not meritorious.

saltydog said:

Why doesn’t the DOJ just ban the weapon that the bump stock is attached to? You could use the same modified ruling and you could keep the stock. It takes both units to tango....

Click to expand...

Well, that's an avenue that a future Administration could pursue. Since practically any semiautomatic rifle -- and particularly an AR-15 -- could be used with a bump stock, they would all be "readily convertible" without any machine work being done at all. It wouldn't even matter if you actually had a bump stock. We're going to regret the day that someone invented this workaround. And whoever (from the gun community) suggested that bump stocks be banned as machine guns didn't think through the future consequences.

saltydog said:

Why doesn’t the DOJ just ban the weapon that the bump stock is attached to? You could use the same modified ruling and you could keep the stock. It takes both units to tango....

Click to expand...

Because 26 USC 5845 says a machine gun is:

The term “machinegun” means 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 shall also include 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 combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Click to expand...

Same reason a Lightning Link is a machinegun all by itself.

Unless you are saying the DOJ could just redefine "readily restored to shoot" as being able to accept a bump stock. Then, yeah, why don't they? Scary proposition.

AlexanderA said:

Well, that's an avenue that a future Administration could pursue. Since practically any semiautomatic rifle -- and particularly an AR-15 -- could be used with a bump stock, they would all be "readily convertible" without any machine work being done at all. It wouldn't even matter if you actually had a bump stock. We're going to regret the day that someone invented this workaround. And whoever (from the gun community) suggested that bump stocks be banned as machine guns didn't think through the future consequences.

Click to expand...

That was my point to begin with, well said. If your going to “illegally modify an existing law,” hell just ban the weapon. I’m surprised that the Congress and the Senate have nothing to say about this ruling unless they just want to see Trump implode....

Tommygunn said:

You're kidding! Ban assault rifles ----- er, semi auto sporting rifles?



You know they're trying their hardest to do that. The bumpstock is a part that is easily removed and replaced with a normal stock. If the owner has discarded the normal stock, Academy Sports sells stocks that are likely better quality than the original stock. Why would they take the gun when they have BANNED the BUMPSTOCK??????

Unless you simply want a ban on AR style rifles your suggestion is .... well, not meritorious.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, bad humor.....

saltydog said:

I’m surprised that the Congress and the Senate have nothing to say about this ruling unless they just want to see Trump implode....

Click to expand...

The Democrats won't say anything because it furthers gun control, and the Republicans won't say anything because they don't want to cross Trump. If Hillary had been president she could never have gotten away with this.

pdsmith505 said:

Unless you are saying the DOJ could just redefine "readily restored to shoot" as being able to accept a bump stock. Then, yeah, why don't they? Scary proposition.

Click to expand...

I'll predict that when the Democrats control the presidency and at least one house of Congress, they will try something like this. The AR-15 is squarely in their sights. Originally I thought they would base a ban on the time it takes to machine a lower receiver to accept the FA parts. Now, as part of the rationale, I think they will add (a) the ability to accept a bump stock, and (b) the ability to accept a DIAS or Lightning Link.

Legally, the bump stock ban, if it stands, gets them 95% of the way there.

The only bright spot is that, if suddenly all AR-15's were thus declared contraband with no grandfathering and no compensation, there would be a hue and cry in Congress to grandfather them in some way. (Even some Democrats would join.) That would necessarily involve the repeal of the Hughes Amendment and then the declaration of a blanket amnesty. A whole bunch of unregistered (actual) machine guns would come out of the woodwork.

MachIVshooter said:

I would honestly prefer that the ban doesn't get overturned/nullified. The precedent of the way it was gone about I don't like, but the ban itself is really a good thing for RKBA in the long game. Think about it; these things were destined to become contraband one way or another. Would we rather it happen with no collateral damage as it has, or do we want to roll the dice on what sort of broader anti-gun legislation will come through a Democrat house and squishy republican senate next month? With bump stocks already off the table, there is far less momentum & public support for further gun control.

Click to expand...

I enjoyed my bump stock. Since I will never be able to afford a transferable AK, the SlideFire was the closest i could come to enjoying the experience of full auto.

I'm curious as to what part of the device will be considered illegal. All parts? The hex nut?

I was sent this via email. I don'tsee it posted elsewhere; for what it's worth.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...m_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email

JeffG said:

I was sent this via email.

Click to expand...

So it will be officially published in the Federal Register the day after Christmas. The deadline, then, for getting rid of your bump stocks will be March 26. Hopefully we may see an injunction suspending it by then, so that the case can be considered on the merits.

I don’t think we’ll see an injunction. The ATF has gone down this road before e.g. calling a semiautomatic that fires from an open bolt a machine gun. The long game is a complete disarming of the public. It’s just a matter of not letting a crisis go to waste, removing one brick at a time and proper timing (alignment of government and courts). This isn’t about bump stocks and machine guns. It’s not even about public safety. The ATF gets to Invent new definitions, calling an apple an onion, essentially. Considering you can bumpfire an AR or AK with a belt loop, is this constructive possession of a machine gun?

tepin said:

I don’t think we’ll see an injunction. The ATF has gone down this road before e.g. calling a semiautomatic that fires from an open bolt a machine gun.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the ATF has never before reclassified an item without allowing some form of grandfathering. (For example, Street Sweeper shotguns could be registered as Destructive Devices.)

tepin said:

The long game is a complete disarming of the public.

Click to expand...

I don't think the NRA and the Trump Administration are willing participants in the "long game." They just grossly mishandled the whole situation. This error will be exploited by the true enemies of the 2nd Amendment in the future.

The NRA leadership is compounding its error by not participating in the lawsuits to overturn this thing. Instead, they are doubling down on their original actions requesting a regulatory review. And, in a display of incredible gall, they are asking for more money so they can fight more restrictions in Congress. (How about, instead, Wayne LaPierre returns part of his exorbitant salary, or, better yet, just resigns?)

AlexanderA said:

AFAIK, the ATF has never before reclassified an item without allowing some form of grandfathering. (For example, Street Sweeper shotguns could be registered as Destructive Devices.)

Click to expand...

And such a fast ban as well. It is one thing if they said bump stocks would be banned Jan 1, 2020 or something like that. 90 days is flat out FAST.