Bump Fire Regulation Comment Period Open

[sithlord]

The comment period for this EO/Rule Change is now open:

Regulations.gov

Personally, I submitted 7 specific reasons (below), which you are free to use. I elaborated on each point, however, the gist of each is as follows:

(1) Ex post facto law/ruling (in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of US Constitution) since the ATF previously ruled these were not machine guns
(2) Violation of 5th Amendment (deprived of property without due process) [only lawful options are unwilful destruction or forfeiture]
(3) In their rule under Supplementary Information, Section V: Proposed Rule, paragraph 5, they state:

Finally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on these interpretations, that the term “machinegun” includes a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

Since the shooter’s finger (thus the shooter) re-engages and manipulates the trigger, it fails the 2nd portion of the statement.
(4) A person not destroying or forfeiting their property becomes a felon. The same thing occurred when the NFA was passed, and it was found to be in violation of the 5th Amendment (as registration was effectively a self-indictment). Since this rule does not utilize the GCA’s amnesty period, it COULD violate that portion of the 5th Amendment
(5) Since the ATF has ruled that these items are not MGs, banning these devices requires legislation, not rule or interpretation changes
(6) This rule allows other forms of bump-fire, and is thus inconsistent. Law must be precise, and if not, then the individual cannot be held accountable. Since this is a ruling affecting law, it needs to have the same level of consistency.
(7) This appears to be a knee-jerk political response to a one-off event, rather than any actual, meaningful attempt to curtail violent crime, and in so doing, only affects law-abiding citizens.


Regardless of whether you feel that bump-fire stocks are [stupid, ridiculous, a waste of money, skirting the spirit of the law, ...], this is still incrementalism, and wrong. We complained when Obama did it. Complain again now.

Cheers!

 

[HKSmith]

Point #1 is a misunderstanding of the meaning of ex post facto. It refers to a law that would find someone guilty of violating the law for an act committed prior to the passage of the law. It does not apply to changing a law or regulation as long as the violation occurs after passage of the change.

I would not use this point in commenting on any proposed change in regulations as it does not apply.

 

[Gripgrabber]

Well they did it in Florida (SBP 7026) says bump stocks are banned on 1 oct 2018. Sooo the state of Florida just stole my property from me. Yes I think bs are bs, I used it once and put it away. But, if it can be said something like (bump stocks) make a msr more lethal what’s next? Red dots, scopes, target triggers,lights,lasers ,match grade ammo?
Semper paratus

 

[touchoneoff]

That's the problems with regulations like this....it never ends.

 

[sithlord]

Well they did it in Florida (SBP 7026) says bump stocks are banned on 1 oct 2018. Sooo the state of Florida just stole my property from me. Yes I think bs are bs, I used it once and put it away. But, if it can be said something like (bump stocks) make a msr more lethal what’s next? Red dots, scopes, target triggers,lights,lasers ,match grade ammo?
Semper paratus

While I disagree with WHAT Florida did, at least it was done LEGISLATIVELY. This is a proposed interpretation change of federal law. I'm sure that the Florida (and other similar state laws) have similar 5th Amendment violations (deprived of property without due process).

As far as the rest... That's called incrementalism. The Revolutionary War started because of less overreach from the government.

 

[cbore]

agree but disagree

Personal note I don't see the need for bump stock. On the other hand one ruling continues to the next. Being a Southern look at the Civil War monuments. My no means a hard core rebel but the other less offensive items continue to come next. We only expect the same with gun regulation.

 

[bushmaster1313]

In a larger conflict it is necessary to choose your battles.

IMHO Bump sticks are a done deal and it is wise to move on to engagements that can be won.

 

[sithlord]

In a larger conflict it is necessary to choose your battles.

IMHO Bump sticks are a done deal and it is wise to move on to engagements that can be won.

Interesting. So, where is your 'line in the sand'? All Semi-autos? 10 round magazines? Your single shot musket?

The line has been moving since 1934. I get that some battles you win, some you lose. The M855 'ban' was WON due to public comment. And throwing up your hand and saying 'well, I know it's unconstitutional, BUT' puts you in the same crowd (IMO) as 'I believe in the 2A, BUT'.

And in my eyes, that makes you a FUDD. I just would like to know where your line in the sand is, so that when they cross it, I can tell you that you lost that battle years ago and you didn't even know it.

Cheers!

 

[hoc9sw]

I read the doc. They covered their bases very well.

I see the strongest counter-point to be the lack of restitution for items that have to be surrendered or destroyed. If they did have to pay for the items, the cost to the taxpayer would be greater, and there might be less support.

The second counter-point, which they try to gloss over with statistics, is the loss of jobs and resulting unemployment in the town where the manufacturers have facilities. A proper study would also ask about the availability of replacement jobs at commensurate salary. The loss of jobs in an area with equal job opportunity is very different from an area with no other opportunity. I don't know the areas, but I did not see this considered.

 

[Muss Muggins]

In a larger conflict it is necessary to choose your battles.

IMHO Bump sticks are a done deal and it is wise to move on to engagements that can be won.

I don't want or need a bump stock, but the 2nd Amendment allows those who do to keep and bear one. That is what we need to remember . . .

 

[keith44spl]

Interesting. So, where is your 'line in the sand'?

They's got no sand in new jersey...........


.

 

[WCCPHD]

The way the BATFE and government intends to get around compensating people for loss of their property is they are declaring the bump stocks to be contraband, much like cocaine, marijuana or any other inherently illegal item.

BATFE is attempting to declare an item that they have previously approved to be illegal and more importantly Contraband. This is an arbitrary and capricious declaration and is being done ONLY due to political pressure, not due to facts or reason.

How can a federal agency declare a previously approved item to be contraband via administrative rule? I understand that the Congress has this authority through the passage of a law; however, for an agency (executive branch) to declare an item contraband based solely on the pressure placed on it by the President (executive branch) is, in my non-lawerly opinion, illegal and violative of federal law and the US Constitution.

There is a separation of powers inherent in the US Constitution that is being abused by this proposed rule. The executive branch has ordered the executive branch to declare a previously approved item (by the executive branch) to be contraband and subject to seizure without compensation without approval by the Congress (legislative) or through ruling by a court (judicial).

IF the rule to declare this device illegal (i.e. contraband) is passed then compensation must be provided for people losing their property as I do not believe an executive branch agency has the authority to arbitrarily declare an item contraband with out benefit of an act of Congress. Also, this raises the issue of compensation for the loss of jobs and business from the manufacturer of the device.

Like others who have posted, I do not own a bump stock, I do not want a bump stock and I see no real purpose for a bump stock; however, in my extensive study of the US Constitution I do not recall any mention of the "Bill of Needs." I believe there is included in that document a Bill of RIGHTS and what the BATFE is trying to do here violates several provisions of the Constitution proper and its amendments.

This is simply my opinion,

 

[Kevin J.]

In a larger conflict it is necessary to choose your battles.

IMHO Bump sticks are a done deal and it is wise to move on to engagements that can be won.

Agree. This battle is lost, regroup and move on to the next fight.
Full disclosure, I have always thought bump stocks were just scam by ammo manufactures to make you waste ammo. Half joking.....

 

[bushmaster1313]

Interesting. So, where is your 'line in the sand'? All Semi-autos? 10 round magazines? Your single shot musket?

The line has been moving since 1934. I get that some battles you win, some you lose. The M855 'ban' was WON due to public comment. And throwing up your hand and saying 'well, I know it's unconstitutional, BUT' puts you in the same crowd (IMO) as 'I believe in the 2A, BUT'.

And in my eyes, that makes you a FUDD. I just would like to know where your line in the sand is, so that when they cross it, I can tell you that you lost that battle years ago and you didn't even know it.

Cheers!

Lines in the sand are by definition arbitrary and counterproductive. Each side of the line is no different than the other. That's why it's called a line in the "sand."

What I want is for the RTKBA to remain the birthright of every American. To me this means the right to keep and bear a handgun, shotgun, hunting rifle and the type of longarm designed for conflict, i.e., a semi-auto well-scoped centerfire rifle with a removable magazine. And don't forget plenty of ammunition.

In fighting to preserve these basic rights under the 2A, it is not helpful to lead with our collective chin by enabling the other side point to our advocates and say: "Why should we listen to you, you were the ones arguing in favor of mail-order bumpstocks."

Smart fighters know how to cut their losses. I want to maximize the opportunity to maintain our basic 2A Liberty as long as possible.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Smart fighters know how to cut their losses. I want to maximize the opportunity to maintain our basic 2A Liberty as long as possible.

Well, let us know when the lawmakers get to the accessory or firearm you think you should still be able to have . . .

 

[sithlord]

In fighting to preserve these basic rights under the 2A, it is not helpful lead with our collective chin by enabling the other side point to our advocates and say: "Why should we listen to you, you were the ones arguing in favor of mail-order bumpstocks."

As far as what you should say to the other side, how about 'I am standing up for CIVIL RIGHTS, against GOVERNMENT OVERREACH and TYRANNY'. Today, it's bump fire stocks. Tomorrow it's your hand-guns (you DO know that the original NFA was originally targeting handguns ONLY)?

'Plenty of ammunition'? Haha.. So if "they" determine that 50 rounds is sufficient for a YEAR (I believe that's the standard in the UK), or you need a background check to purchase ammo, etc, you'll be OK with that, because, well, "Why should we listen to you, you were the ones arguing in favor of being able to keep thousands of rounds of ammunition"


Why should we listen to YOUR grand strategy when you have demonstrated that you'll roll over the first sign of adversity? Yeah, that's some real 4D Art of War Chess you're playing there. Personally, I don't think it was over when the Germans bomb'ed Pearl Harbor.... (hat -tip to Brother Bluto).

 

[stansdds]

I have never been a fan of of things like bump stocks or trigger devices that turn semi-automatic firearms into quasi-full auto firearms. I say this from the perspective of design issues regarding semi-auto vs those designed specifically for select fire or full auto operation. That being said, if a ban is enacted and there is no grandfather clause, then the government seizes property without compensation. This brings up the next issue, which would be what else can the government declare illegal and begin to seize without compensation.

30 round magazines? 7 round magazines? All detachable magazines, which would include a number of bolt action rifles. Any firearm capable of firing more than one shot without stopping to reload? It is the slippery slope that should strike fear into the hearts of those who value their liberty and freedom.

 

[federali]

Weapons Of Mass Destruction

It was rather easy to ask, why does one need a Machine-gun?" following the deaths of 59 innocent people at that concert in Vegas. But then, a terrorist used a heavy truck to mow down and kill more than 80 people in France. The bottom line is that no amount of legislation will keep killers from killing.

If you're a student of history, you know that in biblical times, as many as 50,000 combatants could die in a single day of hand-to-hand fighting, including clouds of arrows fired at steep trajectories much like contemporary mortars, yet, gunpowder didn't even exist.

Sorry guys, I don't have the answer but I sometimes wonder if the framers of our Constitution might have used different wording if they could envision automatic weapons, especially in the hands of lunatics.

 

[rwsmith]

My main argument....

Though I would be most happy with NO further gun restrictions, I'll throw this up in front of you guys to debate, ignore or reject it.

First off, more gun regulations aren't going to stop violence. It's the violent tendencies themselves that need to be addressed.

But if we want to see how bump stocks fit into that, we ALREADY have gun laws controlling auto weapons, in that they can only be had with a special license. If we are going to accept auto weapons control, I have no problem with preventing manufacture, import, sales and ownership of a device that renders a gun, for all practical purposes, an automatic so put them under the same heading as auto weapons and allow them and just have the same licensing. No further changes necessary and we 2A people haven't lost anything. The same would apply to obtaining parts to make an AR 15 or similar semi gun full auto.

I don't know if this is going to hold water in the legal sense, as I just visited a site concerning class 3, title 2 weapons and I'm just more confused by the present legality of owning autos, sawed-off shotguns, etc. Than when I read the laws of my own state. (SC) If my thoughts are legally out of line, please set me straight.
Perhaps I only have Federal and State laws confused on the issue.

 

[sithlord]

Though I would be most happy with NO further gun restrictions, I'll throw this up in front of you guys to debate, ignore or reject it.

First off, more gun regulations aren't going to stop violence. It's the violent tendencies themselves that need to be addressed.

But if we want to see how bump stocks fit into that, we ALREADY have gun laws controlling auto weapons, in that they can only be had with a special license. If we are going to accept auto weapons control, I have no problem with preventing manufacture, import, sales and ownership of a device that renders a gun, for all practical purposes, an automatic so put them under the same heading as auto weapons and allow them and just have the same licensing. No further changes necessary and we 2A people haven't lost anything. The same would apply to obtaining parts to make an AR 15 or similar semi gun full auto.

I don't know if this is going to hold water in the legal sense, as I just visited a site concerning class 3, title 2 weapons and I'm just more confused by the present legality of owning autos, sawed-off shotguns, etc. Than when I read the laws of my own state. (SC) If my thoughts are legally out of line, please set me straight.
Perhaps I only have Federal and State laws confused on the issue.

The short of it is, from a federal perspective, machine guns manufactured and registered under the '1934 National Firearms Act' prior to 1986 can be transferred among civilians for a federal tax of $200 (and an 'extensive background check' which includes fingerprints and photos) - however, no 'license' required. State laws pertaining to possession of machine guns vary - based on a quick search, SC is basically 'if it's approved by the BATFE, then it's ok here'. Thus, it is LEGAL to possess a machine gun.

In 1986, a rider to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) called the 'Hughes Amendment' closed the Civilian Machine Gun NFA Registry. Although machine guns are still manufactured today, they can only be sold to law enforcement and military, because they CANNOT be entered into the NFA registry per this amendment, and thus, cannot be transferred to a civilian.

The issue with bump-stocks, and similar items, is that while they may simulate or approach automatic weapons fire, they were designed, developed and approved to 'circumvent' both the NFA and Hughes Amendment - of that, there is NO QUESTION or DEBATE. The government, by fiat, is attempting to reclassify them as machine guns without legislation due to a single incident, and without re-opening the registry, the government is declaring them contraband, but doing so without legislation, or due process.

It's not about an expensive piece of plastic. None of the arguments in my original post have ANYTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment, and as such, has no bearing on the NFA, Hughes Amendment or the legality of possession of a machine gun. If the government were to reclassify bump-stocks as MGs, and open the registry, then at the VERY least, there is a compromise that offers more options than unwilful destruction of property. In this case, there has been no compromise, and it is legislature by fiat, which every US Citizen should oppose outright, regardless of the cause, IMHO.