DOJ proposing to regulate bump stocks as machine guns

[rickyrick]

No, but sneaky assassins in movies use silencers so they must be bad.

[44 AMP]

Still not sure why suppressors are NFA

Because the original drafts of the NFA 34 restricted machine guns, sawed off shotguns & rifles, and handguns. (I believe all handguns).

Someone shrewdly advised the sponsors that if handguns were included, the bill would never pass. So they re-wrote part of it, removing handguns and substituting "silencers" instead.

Now, you also need to know a few things about the times. Some of them are mentioned in some histories, many aren't.

First off, there was no watchdog group to warn the public about the proposed law. Don't blame the NRA for that, either. Second, the regulated items were only a small fraction of guns, most people weren't owners.

And, third, something that almost never gets mention, is that even after the law passed, and survived a Supreme Count challenge (which is a different argument) it wasn't particularly onerous aside from the $ amount of the tax.

Because, it was a tax law. Yes, the criminal provisions were in there, but for decades, it was enforced as a tax matter. Meaning, (most of the time) if it was an honest "oops, I din't know that was the law" (and many didn't) you paid the tax, got the stamp, and you were good from then on (and you kept your gun).

I think it wasn't until the later 60s when it was decided that policy would change to criminal prosecution as the standard. There was an amnesty period of (I think) 6 months, where they would allow items to be registered and tax paid without any other penalty, but after that expired, criminal prosecution became the standard policy.

Silencers/suppressors shouldn't be NFA items but they got away with putting them in and getting the law passed, so they are. And, after the Supreme Court ruled "we have been shown no evidence..." the entire NFA was treated as valid and unchallengeable. And so its been, ever since.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I do not see every bump stock owner want to march on the capitol in anger and opposition

And there you have it. Back when I was driving a diesel pusher motorhome, I used to be frustrated that diesel fuel, cheaper to produce than gasoline, was higher at the pump than even premium gas. One trucker put it rather succinctly, "When gas prices are high, thousands of drivers call their congressmen. When diesel prices are high, dozens of truckers call their congressmen."

[riffraff]

Well one thing I heard recently was a statement from someone at the ATF indicating suppressors were practically never used in crimes, but were to blame for requiring lots of resources. Was coming up because of trump being criticized for allocating funds to speed up the process.

Would be nice if while they are going around in circles on fixing the background checks (and using more resources there) they would push for ways to streamline various other things (and use less resources) like suppressors.

Hell even if we could just fill out a form and pay the tax stamp on the firearm part, without all the waiting/"processing" BS, it would be a huge improvement.

[rickyrick]

Most gun owners will not participate in marches, or anything political really because they would put their jobs and the family’s income in jeopardy.
You can be vocal for one side, but not the other. You can say people don’t get fired for political reasons but they do.

I suspect that most bump stocks that are out there rarely get used. I’m also sure that the percentage of gun owners that actually own bump stocks is pretty low.

[44 AMP]

Most gun owners will not participate in marches, or anything political really because they would put their jobs and the family’s income in jeopardy.

AND it can put their gun ownership at risk too.

Protesting this or that is your right. But, you can get arrested for it. The non-gun owning political activist doesn't care much about that. In fact for some a six page rap sheet of arrest for civil disobedience is a badge of honor.

No matter how noble the cause, getting arrested threatens your gun rights. There are felony degrees of trespass and criminal mischief, conviction on one of those, bye bye guns, for life.

Even if you never get convicted, its still a risk. What do you think the effect on your application for a handgun license would be if you have a history of being arrested???

A "pattern" of civil disobedience, and disrespect for the law CAN make a difference. In some eyes, it shows poor judgement, or poor character. Your arguments about how it was for a good cause, or all just a misunderstanding carry little or no weight at all.

Actions have consequences, and not just legal ones. For a long time, I held a job that required a security clearance. The only place I could express a political/social issues opinion, without fear of consequences was in the voting booth, with the curtain closed!

One fellow I knew was having family problems, and went to talk things over with a "shrink", something the company provided, and urged us to make use of, at need. Despite the Doc giving him a clean bill of health, they pulled his clearance anyway. What he discussed with the Doc was confidential. The fact that he went to the Doc was required to be reported.

He was in employment "limbo" (hell) for months. Couldn't go to work (no clearance) so he didn't get paid. Couldn't get unemployment benefits, because he was (technically) employed. And, in an almost perfect Catch-22, he couldn't file the papers with the govt to speed up their review process, because the office that had the papers needed a security clearance to get to... He was, eventually re-instated, but the entire experience had stressed him so much, he was soon gone for a valid reason. And, no, he never got a dime of any back pay for the time he was suspended.

Even in jobs that don't require a clearance, your boss cannot legally fire you for having a political opinion different from theirs. But they can fire you for other things, like being 1 minute late, or having a company pen remain in your pocket when you leave work for the day (theft)...or nearly anything else. Despite what the rules say, its the way the real world works.

[raimius]

Has the BATFE put out an official Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The non-gun owning political activist doesn't care much about that. In fact for some a six page rap sheet of arrest for civil disobedience is a badge of honor.

That is very telling about the kind of people on each side of the issue.

[raimius]

Has anyone tried to submit comments? I cannot find it at regulations.gov.

[csmsss]

Has anyone tried to submit comments? I cannot find it at regulations.gov.

I don't believe the new rule has been proposed as yet - they have only announced the intention of doing so at this point.

[In The Ten Ring]

Just curious, as to your viewpoint. How does the bump stock infringe on your/our 2 ND. amendment rights? I understand give a inch and take a mile.
What about the auto sear that 44 AMP mentioned, is that an infringement on your 2 ND. amendment rights??????? just my opinion here but folks are starting to sound like its the end of the world because bump of the issue with bump stocks.

Making anything harder or impossible to own on the premise that person may use it to commit an act of evil is an infringement. It's also a prejudice against the individual.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Don P

Just curious, as to your viewpoint. How does the bump stock infringe on your/our 2 ND. amendment rights? I understand give a inch and take a mile.
What about the auto sear that 44 AMP mentioned, is that an infringement on your 2 ND. amendment rights??????? just my opinion here but folks are starting to sound like its the end of the world because bump of the issue with bump stocks.

I don't think anyone argues that a bump stock ban is the end of the world. It is alarming to many because of the principle free quality of any proposed ban.

If you sent me a DVD of Sleepless in Seattle and a bump stock for free, I might toss them both in recycling as an act of disdain. If the federal government decided to regulate both into criminality, I'd have constitutional and procedural issues.

[rickyrick]

It’s just a little bouncy thing. In essence (in my layman’s opinion) they are banning pulling the trigger really fast a bunch of times.
Bump stocks are useless, silly and kinda dangerous to me. Just because I feel that way, don’t mean we should start making up rules to make it a machine gun.

This will be the first accessory.

The cards are out on the table, they’ve shown their hand. They want semi autos gone. They want anything more than 10 rounds gone.
The bump stocks are what they can get right now. The rest will follow.

[Sharkbite]

It would seem an easy thing to prove its not a machine gun.

Just remove your support hand. A machine gun will fire with only one hand (Firing hand) on the gun. A bump stock with only one hand on it, will not fire again after the first shot. Takes the second hand pulling forward.

[5whiskey]

Has anyone tried to submit comments? I cannot find it at regulations.gov.

Well well well. Comments were closed on 01/18/2018 after 30 days. The actual proposed rule change was filed December 18th. I read it. The reasoning used in describing why the DOJ has the authority to change the way the definition is interpreted is... Well, painful to read with a straight face if you care about the rule of law IMO. I would like to see one of resident attorneys (not naming any names Frank) give a candid observation on it but I know they wouldn't (I understand why they wouldn't also).

[raimius]

5whiskey, that was the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking supplemental info for the NPR released last week on the DOJ site.

[5whiskey]

^^^ I see. Sorry my mistake