Trump administration to announce final bump stock ban

[raimius]

I was under the impression that an "amnesty period" was still allowed under the law. Did the Hughes Amendment eliminate that?

The whole thing is lawless as the ATF does not have the authority to modify the federal definition of "machine gun," and bump stocks do not meet the NFA/GCA definition.

[44 AMP]

I was under the impression that an "amnesty period" was still allowed under the law. Did the Hughes Amendment eliminate that?

Yes, it effectively did, though in practicality the amnesty ended years before.

Up until about 68, if you "discovered" (or were caught) an unregistered, untaxed machine gun, you could pay the tax, register the gun, and keep it.

It was generally considered a minor tax boo-boo and seldom were criminal charges brought. This changed around 68 (if I remember correctly, but I might have the year wrong..) anyway, the Govt decided to treat an untaxed machine gun as a criminal matter (10years prison, $10,000 fine, felony conviction) At that time, there was a 6 months "amnesty" so that if you hadn't previously registered and paid the tax on your machine gun, you could do so during the amnesty period without facing criminal charges.

More than a few people did just that.

However, the Hughes Amendment ended any additional registry for civilian owners. If the gun was not registered with the government by May 19, 1986, it would not be allowed to be registered in the civilian registry. New guns could be made, and registered, for sale only to the military and police. Machine gun dealers could have them, or make them, as "dealer samples" to demonstrate the weapons to authorized buyers, but these guns cannot be sold to private individuals.

the ATF does not have the authority to modify the federal definition of "machine gun," and bump stocks do not meet the NFA/GCA definition.

I, personally agree with this, however, the administration apparently does not, they believe they have the authority to administratively change the definition, and they are DOING it. Until/unless a court rules against them, they will get away with it.

[Tom Servo]

If you read through the rule, they respond to public comments regarding concepts like grandfathering, amnesty, and renumeration. In all three cases, the response is, "we don't have the authority to do that. It takes an act of Congress."

Yes. Let the irony sink in.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I, personally agree with this, however, the administration apparently does not, they believe they have the authority to administratively change the definition, and they are DOING it. Until/unless a court rules against them, they will get away with it.

Although it would seem clear as a matter of law, the court's general disdain of the 2nd Amendment probably gives the chance of the court ruling against the government in this case around 50%.

[Elkins45]

So is the bump fire board now illegal as well?

https://youtu.be/ZNYTA1FtES8

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Elkins45

So is the bump fire board now illegal as well?

It's hard to say, but I could envision a few abuses of the "constructive possession" doctrine going forward.

[Sabre9mm]

My $0.02, this is very similar to the fight the FBI had with Apple over the modification of firmware to allow legal access to an encrypted phone. The subsequent DCMA ruling change to legalize (for citizen’s benefit of course) this thus hobbling Apple’s claims that they could not. We all know the FBI could have (has, did, and will again) paid an independent security firm to do this. That is my point and how it relates, this is a stab at the legal right to modify the basic rights in any form. Be they privacy and or gun legislation. It is “can we get ANYTHING to move forward, if so we can use that as leverage for larger changes?”. So as a result, they pick targets that are emotionally motivating such as mass causality crime.

I tell my children all the time (and many young people I know with voting rights), just because a cause sounds good, consider what it means long term and broader to the nature of your rights as a whole.

I personally file this with magazine size restrictions, bullet buttons, and all the other silly stuff that makes lawmakers think they are changing anything about violent crime directly. The homicide statistics do not support these features being influential in the big pool, only the shallow end under the microscope.

Alas though for the same reason we all hold hands and sing songs in church. Emotional convictions imprint longer. They only must rally your sympathies long enough to get a vote passed. And people are proven to passionately back themselves into a corner they will not so energetically work themselves back out of on the next vote.

If it were about life, tragedy, and common sense this would be a cell phone capabilities/pharmaceuticals/tobacco/etc debate not a gun rights debate.

As for bump stocks, I have owned them, they are a fun novelty and an expensive one as well, impractical for anything unless you wanted to do some serious training. Sold them at a huge profit years ago back when they were fashionable. Never missed not having them. All in all, rate of fire and or magazine capacity is not the problem by any means or measure, just a currently popular attack vector for media and politicians. I have seen nothing more logical presented yet than you could argue “the trigger is the most dangerous part of the weapon because it allows the user to make a conscious effort to discharge the weapon!”

As for bump firing remember this, the bump stock was invented as a convenient way to do this, not the only way as many other have pointed out. A bootlace can more effectively do the same thing on the correct gun, already illegal as all get-out, and done routinely even by law abiding citizens.

Why because people find a way… And rights are more often about what people gleefully give away than what people take from them.


So in my humble opinion, fear this with all you have and realize it has nothing to do with needs, or practicality, it is about leverage and effort to make everything about something illegal until the original debate is no longer a debate.

[4D5]

This official act of banning bump-fire stocks is wrong in a number of ways and is at the heart unconstitutional.
I am hopeful that this unjust action will be challenged and struck down.

For one, the bump-fire stock has, for all intents and purposes, been classified the same as a machine gun. However, the immanent piece of plastic is incapable of firing ammunition. Furthermore, it is incapable of firing more than one round of ammunition with one pull of the trigger.

The ruling is quoted as saying;

The rule concludes that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.

In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology. However for gun hating zealots it is but a small leap to rationalize why it should be so.

Furthermore, with this ruling the “people” have now lost the protection of the 5th amendment. If individuals are required to either destroy or surrender property to the “government” without due process and compensation, then the 5th amendment has just been abrogated. There has been no due process of law, just an edict issued by big brother.

The 5th amendment in part says;

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

With this precedent now made law (not by congress), what’s to stop the next infringement on yet another one of the bill of rights. We as a county are headed down a slippery slope and big brother is at the top and pushing hard.

And here in Nevada, with this ruling, Sissylack and his hordes will be emboldened and will decimate Nevada gun owners rights in the coming future.

I am saddened to see what this once great nation is becoming. Me, my brother, father, FIL, grandfather, uncles and many friends have served in our military; swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am hopeful that the tree of liberty will not have to pruned.

[Metal god]

The rule concludes that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.

In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology.

haha really ? you're kidding me ( yes pure sarcasm ) Can you say assault rifle lol . Redefining something so they can ban it is what they do . It's been going on for decades , maybe to the point that the precedent is solidly imbedded into the laws now with no ability of turning back .

The difference if any here is in the regulatory action as apposed this being legislated where they can actually redefine something . But then again doesn't a lot of the regulatory action regardless of type define the regulation . Is it such a big stretch to RE-define something ?

[Skans]

the ATF does not have the authority to modify the federal definition of "machine gun," and bump stocks do not meet the NFA/GCA definition.

Maybe. Maybe not. We won't know until someone with the proper standing tests this in the courts. ATF has staked out a legal position and until some higher authority says otherwise, there is no one standing in their way from making arrests for possessing a bump stock.

[44 AMP]

"shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law."

As a side bet, how long do you think before some bright fellow decides to either omit or, more likely, "redefine" the word "continuous" in the above statement??? (or just drop the word "semiautomatic"??)

Every repeating firearm begins its "continuous" firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.
It's bad enough that we are at the mercy of the Congress taking the authority to redefine the English language as it suits them (and we LET them do it...) but now the Executive is redefining things, without even bothering to consult, or adhere to the words of Congress!

Things have been sliding downhill for some time, but ever since a sitting President publicly defended himself by challenging the meaning of the word "is", things have been going downhill faster and faster.

the language used is a time bomb, and requires only a slight "redefinition" to trigger it. And when some future administration decides they can survive the political fallout, they will detonate it, and then say good bye to privately owned semi autos. And if they stay true to form, it will be turn them in or destroy them, without compensation.

A somewhat similar time bomb was planted in the 94 AWB. We sort of disarmed that one when THAT law sunset, however, several state laws have the same language, and did NOT sunset.

The bomb I am talking about here is the language used declaring the Stryker-12 / Streetsweeper shotgun to be assault weapons. Those guns, and "any other design substantially similar to" then were defined as assault weapons, even though they are not semi autos, or full autos, they are manually operated repeaters!

And guess what boys and girls, EVERY DA REVOLVER is "substantially similar to" those shotguns. The big "drum" magazine of those guns is not a drum magazine, it just looks like one. It is a cylinder, like a revolver, in fact the entire firing system was copied from the DA revolver.

SO, in that law (now surviving at state level in several states) there is the legal basis to regulate and restrict revolvers, over and above all other regulations. And, its been law for many years now, without challenge, primarily because no one has YET attempted to use it to restrict revolvers.

YET.

And, when, in the future, they do move to use this kind of language as legal grounds for further restrictions and enforcement, they will have the (actually valid) argument that "this law has been on the books for years (perhaps decades), and nobody has objected before..."

Once passed, nobody objects to an unpopular or even an illegal law, if it is not enforced.