March 25th, 2021

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that bump stock accessories cannot be considered “machine guns” and thus not subjected to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ban.

On Dec. 26, 2018, ATF classified plastic bump stock accessories as “machine guns” defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, despite them having no ability to fire on their own. The move came after former President Donald Trump’s Feb. 20, 2018 memo ordering the Attorney General to develop the ban, which was spurred by reactions to the deadly Oct. 2017 Las Vegas shooting carried out using bump stocks affixed to rifles.

“And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled.”

The ruling comes two years after the ATF’s ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, illegalizing an estimated 500,000 bump stock accessories owned by Americans.

The case was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.

“Today’s court decision is great news and told gun owners what they already knew,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told American Military News. “We are glad the court finally applied the statute accurately and struck down the ATF’s illegal overreach and infringement of gun owners’ rights.”

In 2010, ATF had originally deemed bump stocks different from machine guns and unable to be subjected to the same regulation as machine guns.

Unlike the internal mechanisms of a machine gun that permit high rates of automatic fire in rapid bursts, a bump stock is a plastic accessory that is affixed externally to a semi-automatic gun. Without changing the internal components, a bump stock uses the gun’s recoil to then “bump” the gun back against the user’s finger, causing another round to fire.

A bump stock does not change a semi-automatic gun’s ability to shoot one bullet per trigger pull, whereas a machine gun fires a rapid burst of bullets per single trigger pull. Instead, a bump stock enables the trigger to be pulled quickly, simulating a higher rate of fire than a user can typically achieve with the unaided action of their finger.

The U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear two separate appeals to the ATF’s bump stock ban in early 2019.

https://americanmilitarynews.c...2_ZwgoM486vWCT6eXdKw

Well of course they're not "machine guns." This was the only logical decision based on existing law.

Well that's good news.

I have no use for a bump stock, but it is very, very clearly not a "machine gun", so it's good to strike this nonsense down.

We'll need all the small, technical wins like this one in the coming months, I'm sure.

I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left

Common sense and logic out of the court system. Well that's quite the change. Wouldn't have guessed they'd have had that in them. Now let's talk about what "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means.

that is most excellent news and its heartwarming to note that in the list of those that brought the case, the NRA was conspicuously absent

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
that is most excellent news and its heartwarming to note that in the list of those that brought the case, the NRA was conspicuously absent

Exactly. I Joined GOA because they seemed like they wanted to fight this ruling.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Well that's good news.

I have no use for a bump stock, but it is very, very clearly not a "machine gun", so it's good to strike this nonsense down.

We'll need all the small, technical wins like this one in the coming months, I'm sure.

Absolutely! I have no use for these things, binary triggers, pistol braces etc. I also don’t think my uses or desires should dictate law or your uses or desires. One pull of the trigger is ONE PULL OF THE TRIGGER.

GOOD DECISION BY THE COURT. The only decision really.

I just joined GOA. I have no use for bump stocks either, but it seems like they are really fighting for our Second Amendment rights.

Well isn't that something..

Bump stocks are dumb, but it's the right decision.

I’ve been a life member of GOA for about 15 years I think.

I like them as a lean and machine no compromise organization. They know the difference between right and wrong.

On another note, is there any record of people having turned their bump stocks into ATF? If any did, were they compensated for it? If not, where did they all go? Seems to me a lot of folks will soon be diving to retrieve them from the bottom of countless lakes. When can they be shown in public again? Asking for a friend.

So this is one circuit where other circuits have upheld the ATF? The SCOTUS may have to take this now.

I think bump stocks are silly and promote poor weapon control, but binary triggers are a hoot. Put one in a 10/22 and have fun, you will like it. 2 and 4 round bursts are best. And pistol braces on a PCC like an SP5 or Scorpion are fun too...

I'm a lifetime member of GoA because of Heller and stuff like this...

But damn do they spam my email

I'm glad about the resistance to government tyranny and it is definitely correct within the law.
However, bump stocks are not really a serious item anyway with most gun folk before this or after.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
that is most excellent news and its heartwarming to note that in the list of those that brought the case, the NRA was conspicuously absent

I was immediately struck by the absence of the NRA in the list as well.

They actually sent me a membership request last week so I called NRA HQ on the phone and waited to give them a piece of my mind. I didn’t have the heart to tell them I was already Life Patron.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
that is most excellent news and its heartwarming to note that in the list of those that brought the case, the NRA was conspicuously absent

I was immediately struck by the absence of the NRA in the list as well.

I would speculate that is because they did not object when the original proposal to ban bump stocks came to be. There was quite a lot of public support for the ban (yes I know, uninformed masses answering a biased question) and the NRA was spineless n gave their support rather than face the optics of the day.

quote:

I would speculate that is because they did not object when the original proposal to ban bump stocks came to be.

Good point!