Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

[chipbennett]

Correct..

You do realize, don't you, that you sound as illogical as the gun control proponents who make up their own definition of "well-regulated"?

 

[jwamplerusa]

@gassprint1

The United States Code (law) provides the definition of machine gun as "The term "machinegun" has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b))", in §921. Definitions 18 USC Ch. 44: FIREARMS From Title 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

26 U.S.C. 5845(b) states
"(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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 machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."


27 CFR § 479.11 - Meaning of terms, As amended by ATF 2018R–22F, 83 FR 66554, Dec. 26, 2018 was changed too:
...
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. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
...

The fundamental problem is the existing law at 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), [even though an infringement] sets forth a definition which the ATF violates in 27 CFR § 479.11. Regardless of the subject, the action of an unelected bureaucracy to functionally create law with criminal penalty cannot be permitted to stand. If allowed to stand there is no longer representative government and as citizens we are back to 1775 and we are effectively subjects existing at the whims of the nobility.

The Rule created by Docket No. 2018R–22F; AG Order No. 4367–2018 was itself an unconstitutional and unlawful act. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” as Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Imagine his reaction to a Rule instituted by an unelected bureaucracy.

 

[gassprint1]

It's amazing how how many people can't read these days or comprehend. Many comments citing what i didn't say then spending time to type in a definition of what i already know.

 

[KLB]

It's amazing how how many people can't read these days or comprehend. Many comments citing what i didn't say then spending time to type in a definition of what i already know.

Right. All the people that "misread" your statement are the ones with the problem here.

 

[jamil]

Who cares?

Of course we care.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

It's amazing how how many people can't read these days or comprehend. Many comments citing what i didn't say then spending time to type in a definition of what i already know.

My man, you just posted this:

It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not. It's really no different than a drop in sear...it turns an semi auto into a full auto regardless if by definition it's "1 pull" of the trigger at a time.

...and you really gonna complain that people can't understand you?

What on earth does "It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not" even mean? So, are you saying or not saying that it's a machine gun part? How can something be a machine gun part, but by definition not be a machine gun part?

Are you saying that you don't think that definitions spelled out by law should matter? That an agency like the ATF should have the power to look at a part, that is clearly, in your own words, NOT a machinegun by definition, and just decide that because they want it to be a machine gun, boom, now it is, what the law says be darned?

And if that's not what you're saying, what on earth are you saying? Because I sure can't figure it out, and evidently neither can anyone else in this thread.

 

[gassprint1]

My man, you just posted this:

...and you really gonna complain that people can't understand you?

What on earth does "It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not" even mean? So, are you saying or not saying that it's a machine gun part? How can something be a machine gun part, but by definition not be a machine gun part?

Are you saying that you don't think that definitions spelled out by law should matter? That an agency like the ATF should have the power to look at a part, that is clearly, in your own words, NOT a machinegun by definition, and just decide that because they want it to be a machine gun, boom, now it is, what the law says be darned?

And if that's not what you're saying, what on earth are you saying? Because I sure can't figure it out, and evidently neither can anyone else in this thread.

Does anyone KNOW what an opinion is?? My OPINION is a bumpstock is a machinegun part...do you all get that? But THE law definition says it is NOT, so that means it isn't..Did you get that??... so what don't you understand?? Just because someone voices an opinion on something they may or may not believe doesn't make something so awful. You can go out and legally buy the full auto trigger/hammer/disconnect/sear but if you install it in a lower..that makes it illegal. You have parts until combined with something else. A bumpstock in my opion is no different. People wouldn't buy it if it didn't run the rifle like a full auto..You can't say you would..nobody can because if it didn't empty a 30rd mag in less than a minute, there wouldn't be anything exciting to talk about.

 

[ditcherman]

Does anyone KNOW what an opion is?? My OPION is a bumpstock is a machinegun part...do you all get that?

Obiously not.

But THE law definition says it is NOT, so that means it isn't..Did you get that??... so what don't you understand?? Just because someone voices an opion on something

We're all glad we're not in your head.

they may or may not believe doesn't make something so awful. You can go out and legally buy the full auto trigger/hammer/disconnect/sear but if you install it in a lower..that makes it illegal. You have parts until combined with something else. A bumpstock in my opion is no different.

Oh. OK. There it is.

People wouldn't buy it if it didn't run the rifle like a full auto..You can't say you would..nobody can because if it didn't empty a 30rd mag in less than a minute, there wouldn't be anything exciting to talk about.

 

[ditcherman]

Who cares?

Of course we care.

At the risk of cheapening the thread...

I could care less.

 

[foszoe]

At the risk of cheapening the thread...

I could care less.

That means you care!

 

[ditcherman]

That means you care!

It’s one of the classics, I believe.

 

[KLB]

You can go out and legally buy the full auto trigger/hammer/disconnect/sear but if you install it in a lower..that makes it illegal. You have parts until combined with something else.

You are just so full of misinformation. From the earlier post showing you the actual lawful definition of a machinegun.

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 machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

The sear IS the machinegun.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Does anyone KNOW what an opion is?? My OPION is a bumpstock is a machinegun part...do you all get that? But THE law definition says it is NOT, so that means it isn't..Did you get that??... so what don't you understand?? Just because someone voices an opion on something they may or may not believe doesn't make something so awful. You can go out and legally buy the full auto trigger/hammer/disconnect/sear but if you install it in a lower..that makes it illegal. You have parts until combined with something else. A bumpstock in my opion is no different. People wouldn't buy it if it didn't run the rifle like a full auto..You can't say you would..nobody can because if it didn't empty a 30rd mag in less than a minute, there wouldn't be anything exciting to talk about.

Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding, I think I get it now.

You are saying that you believe that a bumpstock is a machinegun, as the term is used by yourself (and probably most people.)

While you recognize that it is not a machinegun under the definition of the law, it is something that you would, for yourself, consider a machinegun.

An analogy would be a cap and ball revolver. In federal law, it's excluded from the definition of a firearm, but most people would still call it a firearm in there everyday usage of the term "firearm".

Am I understanding correctly now?

 

[jamil]

That means you care!

At least a little.

 

[jamil]

Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding, I think I get it now.

You are saying that you believe that a bumpstock is a machinegun, as the term is used by yourself (and probably most people.)

While you recognize that it is not a machinegun under the definition of the law, it is something that you would, for yourself, consider a machinegun.

An analogy would be a cap and ball revolver. In federal law, it's excluded from the definition of a firearm, but most people would still call it a firearm in there everyday usage of the term "firearm".

Am I understanding correctly now?

But it’s wrong. It’s the system together that makes it fire fast. for the sake of argument, if we’re to accept rate of fire as relevant, a bump stock is merely a component in the system, it’s not the system itself. It’s unlawful by the current rule to own a bump stock even by itself, because by itself, the ATF has declared it a machine gun. It’s a hunk of plastic by itself, incapable of firing anything on its own.

That’s why I think this part of the conversation is a little ridiculous.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

But it’s wrong. It’s the system together that makes it fire fast. for the sake of argument, if we’re to accept rate of fire as relevant, a bump stock is merely a component in the system, it’s not the system itself. It’s unlawful by the current rule to own a bump stock even by itself, because by itself, the ATF has declared it a machine gun. It’s a hunk of plastic by itself, incapable of firing anything on its own.

That’s why I think this part of the conversation is a little ridiculous.

I agree with you on all that, I'm just trying to slow down the conversation to where we're not talking past each other.

Once we can fully and accurately understand what @gassprint1 is saying, only then can we move on to actually debating it.

I'm still waiting for his reply before I comment too much further.

 

[jamil]

I don’t see the point of even debating it. Which is pretty ironic coming from me.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don’t see the point of even debating it. Which is pretty ironic coming from me.

Oh great, now jamil's account has been hacked. Who's it going to happen to next?

 

[jamil]

Oh great, now jamil's account has been hacked. Who's it going to happen to next?

Now hold on. I’ve not been hacked. While I don’t see the point in debating whether @gassprint1 is correct or not, I would debate whether debating it is pointless.

 

[chipbennett]

It's amazing how how many people can't read these days or comprehend. Many comments citing what i didn't say then spending time to type in a definition of what i already know.

Our reading comprehension is just fine. You made up a definition of "machine gun" out of whole cloth.