What is the current status of bump fire stocks?

It’s VERY simple. It’s called supply and demand.

 

I'd go as far as to say he enjoys making outrageous statements, not always realizing that there may be a good reason why the position is considered outrageous. To paraphrase, he likes "talking first and then thinking later". A 70 year old man should know better.

Your concern about slippery slope bans is well founded. That is why the bumpstock issue has to be settled rationally, precisely and consistent with longstanding law. Defining it as a full auto conversion is the only rational way to do so, if that is possible. IMO, it is. (Edit: Position changed due to a better understanding of the device).

 

I appreciate your kind correction, sir. I have learned something new. That really does change my position on the issue and I have to respect the logic used by the BATFE in their rulings. This makes the current move to ban look very arbitrary and vague.

 

It does seem like it would work a lot better with a spring. If there is still space to add one, it would surprise me if this is not done by some users. But that would be on the user.

 

Things will get very interesting over the next few months. Trump is not going to cross the NRA and the NRA left it up ro BATF review instead of creating new legislation. I just wonder exactly how narrow (or broad) the new rule(s) will be.

 

The first bump fire stock that was initially approved by the ATF then subsequently prohibited did have a spring in the stock, and was called the Atkins Accelerator. Slidefire Solutions came out with their version that had no spring, and Atkins sold his patents to Fostech. Fostech sued Slidefire over patent infringement of the trigger bridge, but the two settled out of court and both still make bump fire stocks without springs.

The Atkins Accelerator continues to be prohibited.

Here's an article reviewing the Atkins Accelerator for the short period that it was legal:

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=129

 

Very interesting. I suppose this is still the definition of a machinegun?:

"The term "machine gun" means any weapon 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." (emphasis added)

The way I would read that is that as long as the trigger must be actuated (by whatever means) for each round, it would not constitute a machinegun, spring or not. The key to the definition appears to be whether the sear is tripped internally or by trigger action. Of course the Akins ban seems to have ignored that, unless I misunderstand.

It might even seem that an electric motor could drive the trigger but in that case the electric switch would legally become the trigger.

 

It was the spring that returned the trigger into the shooter's finger that made the difference.

The full ATF Akins Accelerator determination letter is here:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...lusively-designed-increase-rate-fire/download

And a letter of another person's Akins Accelerator-like device that removed the spring (making it an analog of the now popular bump fire stocks from Slidefire and Fostech) is here:
http://www.vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Trigger-Activator-Akins-ATF-Approval-2008.pdf

It was the spring that returned the trigger into the shooter's finger that made the difference.

An animation of the Akins Accelerator (and I realized I've mispelled 'Akins' my previous posts.)

 

I obviously don't know all the history but it appears that the definition of a machinegun was subtly changed at some point between the NFA and the ATF's 2006 ruling, which is worded slightly differently.

NFA seems to define an MG by multiple shots fired by one movement of the trigger while ATF Rule 2006-2 defines it as multiple shots fired by one movement of the trigger finger, disregarding the fact that the trigger is actually pulled for each shot. I may be misinterpreting what the NFA means by "...a single function of the trigger" though. Seems to me they threw a "policy patch" on what was seen as a loophole.

 

So ... summing up the posts above

...

wait for it

...

A Slide Fire stock is a bump stock that has gone on a spring Akins diet ?

sorry, couldn't resist

 

Well, if so, then the ATF will make a second attempt at throwing a 'policy patch' on the bump fire stock.

The NFA "single function of the trigger" is what allowed the binary trigger systems like the Fostech Echo and Franklin BFS to be approved by the ATF. Pulling the trigger is a 'single function,' and releasing the trigger is a 'single function.' Had the definition been a 'single pull' of the trigger instead of single function, the binary triggers would probably been found to be machine guns, since you get more than two shots for two pulls.

 

After having read a scanned image of the regulation, the ATF's ruling is laser-targeted on bump stocks and not any other mechanism, although it has worrying language regarding a specific interpretation of 'single pull' (this however is unlikely to stand in court, because the NFA uses 'single pull' to describe every other weapon EXCEPT a machinegun, which it uses 'single function', therefore there's a clear argument that the difference in language is explicit and intentional).

The ruling is well-crafted, and at least takes into account a completely accurate description of a bump-stock's intended function when in use. The ruling essentially considers the bump stock as a recoil-operated trigger pulling mechanism, and in any mechanism that pulls the trigger of a weapon, the operating controls of the mechanism BECOME the functional 'trigger'.

Just like putting a electric motor on a gatling gun crank, the switch or button for the motorbecomes the trigger. And with the bump stock, since in its intended configuration, the trigger is blocked by the plastic shelf, it cannot be the trigger that initiates firing, therefore the actual 'trigger' is the support hand pushing the forend (and the weapon itself) forward.

With such an interpretation, multiple shots are being fired per single OPERATION, which is the forward pressure being applied by the support hand, thus bringing a bumpstock equipped weapon into the definition of a machinegun.

 

I have read the complaint against freedom a.k.a. the cited DoJ 55 page document and am forced to note
RX-178's post. There are many chinks in the armor so-to-speak and the NFA usage of 'trigger' is one of them.

Also is the hypothetical (translation; they just made it up) that, in case there is ever ever, everever again a mass shooting like in NV, that the protection (via the DoJ gov't action-destroy) against such potential do-bad act has a $$ value that outweighs their formula on what compensation to give current owners. Translation; no $$ for loss of use, which also in conjunction with RX-178 post would not stand in court.

 

Bump Stocks are now illegal here in Florida

What to do with them is the big question?

Law Suits have been filed for "unconstitutional taking" or whatever the correct term is. I think there is more than one?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...se/os-bump-stocks-lawsuit-20180320-story.html

 

You would think they would grandfather them in or be able to register them like a class 3? Seems odd to just totally outlaw them when you can still own a machine gun with the proper paper work and money.

 

IC how they are trying to do it. Seems like a bad way of going about it and illegal. I really wish they would focus on parenting and mental health. nobody wants to attack the real problem.

 

As most of us know there is great controversy over an out right ban on a device called a bump fire stock. Part of the Public want it and even some gun owners. President Trump wants the DOJ to interpret the Machine Gun ban of 1934 to include the so called bump fire stock. Since this stock allows a semi automatic weapon to fire as a “fast semi auto weapon,” I personally fail to see how the DOJ can legally ban the bump stock as a machine gun under the current law as it was written. The bump stock does not fall under the category of “single function of the trigger” as it was written in 1934. If it did, I would think that Congress would have made it mandatory to attached speedometers to all semi automatic weapons.


Example, part of the law states:


(b) Machinegun

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.

This is not about bump stocks. It’s about twisting a law. If bump stocks are banned under this law then there is nothing to stop the Government from banning any semi auto weapon that they deem fit under this same law?


Pandora’s Box:

As we know - All semi auto weapons can be made to fire full auto.

NOW, by looking at this law, who gets to determine the definition of ”readily restored”?

The ATF?

The DOJ?

The President?


Who will determine the length of time of the ”readily restored” clause? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 hour? A Day?

Again The DOJ? The President? The ATF?


There are millions of other laws in America that have nothing to do with guns that, given this same scenario, would also fall victim to this insanity.


Bump fire stocks are a State or Congressional issue and that’s that! We don’t have a King yet, but it looks like America is well on its way!

 

Grandfathering them would be troublesome because they aren’t serialized, so there’s no way to prove it is pre or post ban. A secret bump stock factory could churn them out by the hundreds and unless you were caught in the act of buying or selling it who’s to say you didn’t own it before the ban?

 

Well, actually if it was YOUR items at $200 it would be different wouldn't it?

Let's be realistic here. Do the math on that amount X the #s we say, excuse me, they say exist. they are trying to get off on the cheap.

 

The estimate from the DOJ was approx 500,000 BF stocks at $200 each = $100 million.

A hundred mil here and a hundred mil there and pretty soon you're talking about real money