SIGforum.com Main Page Mason's Rifle Room Bump stocks: Fed. R. final rule: beware soon to be unregistered machine guns
Main Page Mason's Rifle Room Bump stocks: Fed. R. final rule: beware soon to be unregistered machine gunsPage 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Federal register regulation: Beware as some are selling these soon illegal to possess as an unregistered machinegun: Bump-Stock-Type Devices Start Printed Page 66514 AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The 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 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, the Gun Control Act, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to the effective date of the statute, and therefore will be prohibited when this rule becomes effective. Consequently, under the final rule, current possessors of these devices will be required to destroy the devices or abandon them at an ATF office prior to the effective date of the rule. DATES: This rule is effective March 26, 2019. https://www.federalregister.go...p-stock-type-devices | ||
|
semi-reformed sailor |
I imagine a lot of these will be lost in boating accidents... "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein “You may beat me, but you will never win.” sigmonkey-2020 “A single round of buckshot to the torso almost always results in an immediate change of behavior.” Chris Baker | |||
|
| Freethinker |
I can see some people ignoring the ruling for as long as the issue takes to get settled by the courts, but after that—why? Unless we believe the zombies will be scared away by noise that empties our magazines quickly and inaccurately, what’s the point of hanging onto something that has severe penalties for possessing and would require constant looking over one’s shoulder if ever used for nothing more than its distinctive—and hazardous to one’s freedom—sound effects? ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| I have not yet begun to procrastinate |
I have NO NEED OR DESIRE for a bump-stock but this is written so badly and so falsely that it is utter bullshit. The gun doesn't fire unless the trigger is pulled by the finger of the shooter for EVERY SHOT. That makes it semiauto no matter how you slice, mangle, spindle or mutilate the physics. Thank you The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 for this bullshit!  -------- After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Exactly. If the gun would fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger, it would already be a machine gun. ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Another issue I see, legally, is the confiscation / destruction of personal property without compensation. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
To speculate, I wonder if the description of the action and saying that one trigger pull causes multiple shots was deliberately written to make it possible to challenge in court. If so, why would anyone in the ATF do that? I don’t usually try to find hidden motives in irrational acts, but this one has me thinking. As for the “taking” issue, I believe that would stand scrutiny because it would be the same if I cut off the barrel of a shotgun to less than the legal limit. Once it’s illegal under existing law, I cannot demand compensation for having it seized or being forced to divest myself of it. In this case, even though the ruling is only now being handed down, the claim is that the devices violated the law at the time of their manufacture. ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| Member |
The reason I posted this today is I do not want any members to get a felony charge problem because not everyone knows the final rule is being published with its date for arrest if found in possession. This needs to be widely distributed. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
I appreciated your posting it. Although I knew it was in the works, the update is important to know. ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
Member |
Bumpstocks on their own are a stupid idea, but even at that, I hate the fact that a signature was all that was needed to outlaw/criminalize something with no compensation for the money spent prior to the signature/action. Political HS. I’ve not looked, but are “machine guns” completely banned? I was under the impression that a $200 tax stamp and the proper Form approved by the BATF would allow them. Have I misunderstood that? ———- Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for thou art crunchy and taste good with catsup. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
They are not banned, but for civilians to own a Machine gun, it has to be a transferrable, imported or made before 1986. After that date, all machine guns are only for LE / Dealer use. So basically there is a fixed number of civilian transferrable machine guns from 1986, hence the reason a FA M16 goes for $30K, etc. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Yes, and no. As of 1986 new machine guns may not be registered by the common folk. I.e., if a machine gun was manufactured today (or in 1987), it cannot be transferred except to certain classes of the privileged such as government agencies. Machine guns manufactured prior to the effective date of the law may continue to be transferred, but as can be imagined, “transferrable” machine guns are very, very pricy these days. And that’s the whole basis of being able to ban, and not just restrict, the bump stocks. They were manufactured after the transferable date, they are considered machine guns in and of themselves (yes, a ridiculous notion, but …), and therefore just like a real recent-production machine gun there is no way to possess one legally. ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| Administrator |
Yes, bumpstocks are post-86 inventions. The legal problem with the post-86 MG theory is that bumpstocks were authorized by BATFE for civilian consumption. A manufacturer and many consumers detrimentally relied on the earlier opinion letter by BATFE which allowed bumpstocks. This is not some enterprising shade-tree-bob making drop-in-auto-sears from a yellowed blueprint in his garage and selling them at a local gun show. And now the gov't is offering no compensation for confiscating private property the same gov't said was legal to own, only a eight years ago. [And that opinion letter was issued under the Obama administration.] There is a reason for the 5th Amendment takings clause. Anything can be banned in the name of public safety: semi-autos, large pickup trucks, fertilizer, drones, knives over 6", etc. The thing that was supposed to keep the gov't from willy-nilly confiscating private property is the follow-on to imminent domain: the requirement that the gov't pay for private property it confiscates "for public use." And this is a confiscation (turn your bumpstocks into a local BATFE office). The fact that the stocks are being destroyed rather than "used" shouldn't excuse the gov't's confiscation of private property. The public is getting use out of it: it's just that the gov't is using them for destruction. If I took your kitchen knives and smelted them down into slag, you wouldn't shrug your shoulders and say "LDD, if you were going to use them you'd have to pay me; but since you're just taking them and not using them, you can have them for free." | |||
|
Member |
Thanks for posting. | |||
|
The Joy Maker |
 
| |||
|
| Freethinker |
As they have done before, the ATF doesn’t seem to be bound by or even embarrassed by changing its mind on things like this. Without trying to find the answer, I don’t know what happened to the owners of the “Street Sweeper” shotgun that was okay one day and a “destructive device” the next, but I was reminded of that ruling. In that case I presume that it was possible to register one as a DD because there wasn’t the restriction on registrations as there is on newly-manufactured machine guns. You make a good point, LDD, but I predict that it’ll just be, “Yeah, we said they were okay, but that’s because we didn’t realize how they worked, and now we do. After determining that they were machine guns all along, and unregistered ones at that, we had no choice but to obey the law and order them off the streets.” It wouldn’t be completely different than if the DEA initially said that a particular chemical concoction was legal, but then after further analysis decided it really was a Schedule II drug. “It was illegal then, we just didn’t know it and mistakenly gave a bad opinion. Too bad, so sad.” I know that at least one group will be filing a law suit over the matter, so it will be interesting to see where this goes in the future. The point you raise will no doubt be important. Could we dare hope that it might result in restrictions on the power of faceless bureaucrats to change the law willy-nilly at their whim? Or will it take us someplace even worse? Something I could conceive of would be, “Okay, we got our collective dicks knocked in the dirt on the bumpstock thing, so we’re going to stop issuing ‘It’s okay’ rulings. Do what you want, and if at some point in the future after seeing how it functions (and if it’s used to kill a bunch of people) we decide it’s illegal, we’ll issue that ruling then. That way we won’t be liable for telling anyone they can go ahead and manufacture and sell the things.” ► 6.4/93.6 ___________ “We are Americans …. Together we have resisted the trap of appeasement, cynicism, and isolation that gives temptation to tyrants.” — George H. W. Bush | |||
|
| Member |
re: Streetsweepers There was a period in which one could Register the SS as a Destructive Device, as a friend class 2 explained to me yesterday when we discussed this. BTW, I remember they were about $300 before, then they went to $1,000 and last year I saw one in s local store for $2,000 (it was on the wall and I was a distance away but I think it was $2,000). | |||
|
| Member |
I just heard that Jerry Miculek has been ordered to surrender those revolvers that he turned into machine guns. No one's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.- Mark Twain | |||
|
| Member |
I have always thought bump stocks were silly and therefore do not own one, but Atf and any other agency are the first to tell people that ignorance is not a defense of obeying the law. If this was their stance then it’s not the law abiding citizens fault that they were ignorant to the function of something they approved. If they want to ban them and compensate people then they can make some new law that prohibits them, but to call them a machine gun is inaccurate and it’s just an attempt to take away gun items one at a time by reaching hard to classify them as machine guns | |||
|
| Raised Hands Surround Us Three Nails To Protect Us  |
Here is an older video by VICE/HBO where they talk with the fella from the ATF (retired) that initially determined the bumpstock WAS NOT a machine gun and why. For VICE it seems pretty pro gun. https://youtu.be/kryIJIrD5eQ ———————————————— The world's not perfect, but it's not that bad. If we got each other, and that's all we have. I will be your brother, and I'll hold your hand. You should know I'll be there for you! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page Mason's Rifle Room Bump stocks: Fed. R. final rule: beware soon to be unregistered machine guns
Main Page Mason's Rifle Room Bump stocks: Fed. R. final rule: beware soon to be unregistered machine guns© SIGforum 2024