The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 23, 2018, 06:49 PM   #1
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,394
Trump Administration moves to ban bump stocks

Here is a link to the AG's statement banning bump stocks: link

I'm not sure that the regulation will hold up under challenge as federal code defines machine guns as firearms designed to fire (or readily restored) more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. What are your thoughts?
2damnold4this is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 08:17 AM   #2
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
I don't have details on what form it will take, but...
Companies will go under, current will be destroyed, possibly ban acceptance will increase, long before the legal challenge prevails.

Changing the regulation on current bump stock is moving what has, until now, been a pretty clear line on what makes an automatic weapon. I don't see where it could be moved and be as clear. This could affect quite a bit beyond bump stocks.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 06:45 AM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,186
Once A Machinegun, Always A Machinegun and Bumpstocks

This is the current CFR (federal regulations, not actual law) defining “machinegun.”

Quote:
Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
If a bumpstock is treated as a machinegun or a part that makes a machinegun, then what happens to all the frames or receivers that can be “readily restored” to take a bumpstock?
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old March 26, 2018, 08:10 AM   #4
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Changing the regulation on current bump stock is moving what has, until now, been a pretty clear line on what makes an automatic weapon. I don't see where it could be moved and be as clear. This could affect quite a bit beyond bump stocks.
That is why I am adamantly opposed to this happening through executive order or ATF administrative review. IMO it flouts the rule of law as I don't see how they can stretch the current NFA to include bump stocks the way it is written. If the ban is going to happen, I would much rather see a narrowly tailored bill from congress. Opening this can of worms concerns me. Today, the ATF fudges a word or two in existing law to get "the will of the people" and just bump stocks (likely owned by less than .01% of the population) banned, but it sets a precedent. 5 years from now, that precedent may affect a custom trigger job with no approval from congress. I don't like it.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 08:23 AM   #5
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,712
To be clear the link in the OP is to the notice of the rule making procedure, not to the ban itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
That is why I am adamantly opposed to this happening through executive order or ATF administrative review. IMO it flouts the rule of law as I don't see how they can stretch the current NFA to include bump stocks the way it is written.
Emphasis added. That suggests to me that you aren't single mindedly determined to stretch it.

I am not an advocate of marijuana legalization. However, the administrative process for changing its classification seems a similar sort of administrative hyjinks. This kind of law by fiat is distasteful in itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
If the ban is going to happen, I would much rather see a narrowly tailored bill from congress. Opening this can of worms concerns me.
It concerns me legislatively as well. If congress gets into this very directly, do you think it will be narrowly tailored and only pertain to bump stocks? I think it would include a ban on smiling while you shoot and a ban on lead bullets unless everyone at the range is wearing a hazmat suit and ventilator (or something else only tangentially related).

Your complaint is valid. I don't have a workable solution.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 08:59 AM   #6
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
I am not an advocate of marijuana legalization. However, the administrative process for changing its classification seems a similar sort of administrative hyjinks. This kind of law by fiat is distasteful in itself.
The process is administrative, but at least that is provided for in the law. 21 U.S.C. 811, a federal law, outlines who can alter the scheduling of controlled substances. It clearly defines the regulatory rules and agency that can do so. The NFA does not give authority for the ATF to make broad regulations that are contrary to the text of the law. I understand your overall point, and I am not for broad bureaucratic regulatory powers, however this is more of an apples/oranges comparison.

Quote:
It concerns me legislatively as well. If congress gets into this very directly, do you think it will be narrowly tailored and only pertain to bump stocks? I think it would include a ban on smiling while you shoot and a ban on lead bullets unless everyone at the range is wearing a hazmat suit and ventilator (or something else only tangentially related).
No, I don't expect congress to use any manner of common sense. I also foresee similar silly regulations to arise as a result. I am not itching for congress to do anything with any form of gun legislation, unless they decide to repeal laws already on the books. But alas, if it's going to be done let it be done according to the proper procedure prescribed by law and not by stretching legal authority to exceed it's originally intended bounds.

Quote:
I don't have a workable solution.
Nor do I
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 09:19 AM   #7
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,712
You are correct that in the case of drug schedules the authority was delegated by congress. My only intent was to illustrate the distance between an adminstrative regulatory act and a political consensus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey
But alas, if it's going to be done let it be done according to the proper procedure prescribed by law and not by stretching legal authority to exceed it's originally intended bounds.
The other side of that argument is that a reg with a flimsy foundation is more easily repealed by later fiat, whereas properly passed legislation may be very difficult to reverse, being susceptible only to further legislation or court decision.

If things have cooled politically when the review period ends, what are the odds that Sessions announces that the rule will not be promulgated?
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 09:24 AM   #8
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
The other side of that argument is that a reg with a flimsy foundation is more easily repealed by later fiat, whereas properly passed legislation may be very difficult to reverse, being susceptible only to further legislation or court decision.
A fair point... I still have concern that this is a precedent that doesn't need to be set. To be fair, it's likely it already has been years ago in regulations that I do not keep track of.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 09:27 AM   #9
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,159
Furthermore I just read the proposed regulation and I must say that it must have inspired great labor pangs to draft it in such a manner to seek the ultimate legal conclusion that it came to. For anyone who wants a demonstration in just how broken our government can be, read the document and see for yourself. A great many logical leaps and non-sequitor arguments were taken to reach the conclusion that the ATF can now treat bump-stocks as NFA items.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 04:26 PM   #10
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2damnold4this View Post
Here is a link to the AG's statement banning bump stocks: link



I'm not sure that the regulation will hold up under challenge as federal code defines machine guns as firearms designed to fire (or readily restored) more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. What are your thoughts?


My thoughts? 44% of the voting republicans are finding out why this guy is not a real conservative and is a populist loser not interested in our right and perhaps might be a wake up call to the rest of the party.

At any rate? I don’t support any piece of garbage legislation regarding firearms until we come up with some realistic solutions to our abysmal handling of mental disorders, drug laws, and other major contributing factors to our murder rate that don’t require trampling rights OR require review of how to handle issues while not violating due process.

But hey. I may have an(R) next to my name for voter registration, but I am really a libertarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 04:27 PM   #11
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey View Post
Furthermore I just read the proposed regulation and I must say that it must have inspired great labor pangs to draft it in such a manner to seek the ultimate legal conclusion that it came to. For anyone who wants a demonstration in just how broken our government can be, read the document and see for yourself. A great many logical leaps and non-sequitor arguments were taken to reach the conclusion that the ATF can now treat bump-stocks as NFA items.


Hopefully someone will shut down the ATF before they bungle another criminal issue and start killing women and children again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06510 seconds with 8 queries