Strangest machine gun ever?

[DeepSouth]

I know it’s a strange machine gun as it has no barrel, no receiver, no chamber, no firing pin, no way fire ANY projectile AT ALL. But none of that matters because the powers that be have said:

“ Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump- stock-type devices—meaning ‘‘bump fire’’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics—are ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968”
LINK


So now, let’s think this out together. Let’s look at some key words from the DOJ/ATF quote. “.......To clarify that bump stock type devices...... are machine guns......”
So if everything goes the way the DOJ, ATF, and the President want it to go then as of 3/26/19 you can own a bump stock and no gun at all yet be jailed for possession of a machine gun.... but in reality you didn’t own a firearm AT ALL. You had NO MEANS to fire a projectile, yet you owned a machine gun...

I understand this is not new and has basically been done before with the lighting link, my understanding is that by itself it is also a machine gun, and that makes just as much sence. I’m just putting forth some food for thought. My main point is once we start letting the DOJ, ATF, & .Gov in general define the terms to mean something other than what they mean we’re on very dangerous ground.

I’ll give you an example, part of the definition of a machine gun is:

“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“ LINK

I want you guys to think about something, and I may be totally off but like I said it’s food for thought.
If you take the sear spring out of a 1911 and bend the correct spring, in the correct direction and reinstall it. The first time you pull the trigger your 1911 will empty the magazine, it will fire multiple shots after a single function of the trigger. And to make it do that it’ll take you maybe 10 minutes at your kitchen table, using nothing but a pair of pliers. Remember the words “readily restored to shoot, automatically” and then tell me what’s to stop the DOJ, ATF, and President from banning them.

Do we want the same people that think a machine gun can be a plastic stock incapable of firing a single round to tell us what “readily restored to shoot” means?

Scroll back up and look at that bump stock again and realize it IS a machine gun, then realize your counting on those same people that say that’s a machine gun to say their is no way an AR can be.


If they can ban a piece of plastic that can’t fire a single bullet, because it’s a “machine gun” then they can ban a 1911 because it’s a machine gun, if they ban a 1911 because it’s a machine gun, then they can ban ( your favorite semi auto)

I remember when Obama told his lawyers to find anything he could do. If this ruling stands, when the next Obama tells his lawyers to find something I can assure you they will use this president.

I’ve just talked to a lot of people lately that don’t seem to understand that the bump stock IS the machine gun and when I explain that to them they have this “well that’s stupid” look on their face. Sometimes this has made them realize how much power changing definitions can give people, agencies, politicians, etc. For myself it’s more of a rant than anything, so thanks for letting me rant.

 

[#1buck]

A shoe string is a machine gun too.

 

[Dibbs]

We should enact legislation which requires the ATF to only have access to bump stocks and FA sears,
after all, they're the ones who are claiming they are functional full auto weapons, RIGHT?

 

[Officers'Wife]

You are trying to equate government regulation with common sense. The two are incompatible and I've only spoken through their lawyers for several generations now.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is beating a dead horse. "Conversion devices" have been defined as machine guns since the GCA '68. The debate has been over what exactly a "conversion device" is.

 

[Telekinesis]

View attachment 823383

I’ll give you an example, part of the definition of a machine gun is:

“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“ LINK

Maybe you should post the WHOLE definition of "machine gun" from your source (the ATF) instead of just showing us one, writing a rant (as you put it), and then ignoring the part of the definition that actually applies to bump stocks - the conversion pieces (bullet number 3).

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act 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 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, or
  
• 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.

I'm with you - it's a stupid decision on the part of the ATF. But this was a pretty poor way to try to prove your point because your own support invalidates your argument.

(And don't go trying to modify a 1911 like that. The ATF has previously been known to try people for possession/transfer of a MG based on malfunctioning guns.)

 

[DeepSouth]

Maybe you should post the WHOLE definition of "machine gun" from your source (the ATF) instead of just showing us one, writing a rant (as you put it), and then ignoring the part of the definition that actually applies to bump stocks - the conversion pieces (bullet number 3

The section quoted wasn’t supposed to have anything to do the bump stock, it had to do with the 1911 example, obviously. It had nothing to do with proving a point about a bad bump stock ruling which I wasn’t really trying to do. If there was point proving it was that letting them randomly change the rules is bad business.

This is beating a dead horse. "Conversion devices" have been defined as machine guns since the GCA '68. The debate has been over what exactly a "conversion device" is.

This is very true, the problem I’m trying to point out is if we allow the goal post to be moved at will how long before they start moving a different goal post in similar manner, like what is readily convertible.

 

[jmorris]

Remember the words “readily restored to shoot, automatically” and then tell me what’s to stop the DOJ, ATF, and President from banning them.

Yes, bad precedent. As any semiauto can be bump fired without a $100 hunk of plastic and can also be turned into machine guns with a piece of string.



So now we just need an order from one guy and they are all illegal....

 

[ontarget]

I didn't read anything about "readily convertible". It said parts intended to convert.

 

[Robert]

It's stupid and I don't agree with it, but yet another rant about how it's stupid and we don't, or do, agree with it is not going to change anything.