Although there was a previous thread on the Proposed Bump Stock Ban it included a Public Comments period that is now ended. (It was conducted prior to the Parkland Fl. school shooting and before the current proposal)

I wanted to differentiate this proposed Bump Stock Ban both because there is a new Public Comments period and also because we now have wording on how the proposed ban would be implemented by the ATF, including the definitions it is using, the precedents it is basing the ban on, the cost impact of the ban, and acceptable means of surrendering or destroying Bump Stocks.

Normally I would include the text of such a proposed rule but it is quite lengthy and also contains several tables and charts.

As I am not familiar with the inner workings of many of the trigger devices or rate-of-fire (ROF) increasing devices available I would be interested for any discussions on the ramifications of this proposed ban and what other devices or shooting techniques might be impacted by it.

Please take some time to review this proposed Bump Stock Ban, and I would encourage all to post comments in opposition to the ban during the Public Comments period which ends 6-27-18.


https://www.federalregister.go...gov&utm_medium=email

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

The administration has already decided what it wants to do. From the federal register:

On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum to Attorney General Sessions concerning “bump fire” stocks and similar devices. 83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted that the Department of Justice had already “started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of `machinegun' under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal.” Id. at 7949. The President then directed the Department of Justice, working within established legal protocols, “to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received [in response to the ANPRM], and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” Id. Publication of this NPRM is the next step in the process of promulgating such a rule.

Consistent with its authority to “`reconsider and rectify'” potential classification errors, Akins, 312 F. App'x at 200, ATF has reviewed its original classification determinations for bump-stock-type devices from 2008 to 2017 in light of its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, namely the definition of “machinegun.” These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.

ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF's classifications of bump-stock-devices between 2008 and 2017 did not include extensive legal analysis of these terms in concluding that the bump-stock-type devices at issue were not “machineguns.” The statutory definition of machinegun includes bump-stock-type devices—irrespective of whether the devices harness recoil energy using a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure—because these devices enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Id. This proposed rule is the appropriate mechanism for ATF to set forth its analysis for its changed assessment. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983).

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The administration has already decided what it wants to do. From the federal register:

Perhaps. But the M855 ban proposed under the Obama administration was defeated when there was an organized outpouring of Public Comments opposed to it, along with the underhanded way in which it was conceived and implemented.

There is no information to suggest that the one tragic instance in which Bump Stocks were used that they increased the lethality or casualty rate, and it is entirely possible that they may have actually reduced the casualty rate by inducing inaccurate fire.

If Pro-2A supporters start to set the precedent of simply acquiescing to proposed bans every time there is a senseless mass shooting and some unprincipled politician decides to knee-jerk react to it... well, today Bump Stocks... tomorrow standard capacity mags.

It doesn't take long to post a clearly worded comment in opposition to the ban in the Public Comments section...and I'll not concede any further senseless erosion of the 2A without a fight.

I agree that we should take part in the comment process. I don't hold out a lot of hope, but I think we should still lodge the protests.

I am also irritated that this is happening under an administration that purported to be our friend on this issue.

61 days remaining in the Public Comments period. Please add your comments opposing this ban!

A little more than a month left to comment!

The link in the OP is a little circuitous to the comment section. This link will take you to the main page where you can place your comment.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ATF-2018-0002

One week left in the public comments period. Please take a few moments to oppose this senseless ban.

Last day to post your comments.

Interesting part of making a comment on their web page... you have to give them all your information...name and address.... I broke down and made a comment anyway and now I'm on another government list.....

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
Interesting part of making a comment on their web page... you have to give them all your information...name and address.... I broke down and made a comment anyway and now I'm on another government list.....

Yeah, as a general rule I avoid creating online profiles that require any personal contact info. But given the purpose and importance of making public comments on issues like this I can understand why the government would want to vette the responses.

The Admin Act is one of the most boring and uninteresting aspects of our government...and yet it provides for an incredibly important and powerful check to governmental over-reach. I value a system that allows citizens to have input on a proposal and I'll risk the security of my basic personal info to exercise this privilege.