Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

[Mij]

View attachment 336703

That’s a machine holding a gun.

 

[KLB]

True, though it's primarily ATF that is given the applicable regulatory rule-making authority.

The EPA is probably more egregious

 

[Ingomike]

True, though it's primarily ATF that is given the applicable regulatory rule-making authority.

EPA is particularly abusive as well.

 

[chipbennett]

The EPA is probably more egregious

In terms of general regulatory/administrative overreach: certainly. But EPA doesn't do rule-making with respect to firearms.

 

[jamil]

SG?

dang it, I said SG so I wouldn't have to type it out. Now I have to type it out anyway. solicitor general

 

[actaeon277]

The EPA is probably more egregious

Are you really going to use words that make me look them up?

 

[KLB]

Are you really going to use words that make me look them up?

Sorry, WORSE!

Better?

 

[Ingomike]

In terms of general regulatory/administrative overreach: certainly. But EPA doesn't do rule-making with respect to firearms.

This is what we were responding to. If this stands then the avalanche will begin…

If SCOTUS lets ATF unilaterally change statutory language… …then all agencies can use that authority to enact further rulemaking, based on that revised, statutory definition.

 

[DadSmith]

The ATF will then declare all AR-15 rifles to be machineguns and therefore illegal as someone can use a belt loop to bump fire it, and for the skilled, they need nothing, not even a belt loop, to bump fire one using nothing other than a semi-auto AR-15, both hands and their shoulder. Biden and his minions will be on the warpath to turn this into their desperately desired Assault Weapons of War Ban and we'll all be overnight felons filling the Federal Prison system for decades. They're already headed in that direction! Thank the NRA for this.

 

[cbhausen]

Well, I just caught up on this thread and it’s depressing.

 

[ditcherman]

I clearly state the fact that you and others just repeated.

Whatever it was that you did or didn't really clearly say, this is what we are all reading, quoting from your post...

"I've always said it was a machinegun part, just like a "switch" ..it turns a semi into full auto."

And that makes it sound like you are saying a bump stock is a machine gun part, well, because it's what you said.

So we're having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, because now you're kinda not saying something else really clearly. Or saying something else not really clearly.

 

[gassprint1]

Whatever it was that you did or didn't really clearly say, this is what we are all reading, quoting from your post...

"I've always said it was a machinegun part, just like a "switch" ..it turns a semi into full auto."

And that makes it sound like you are saying a bump stock is a machine gun part, well, because it's what you said.

So we're having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, because now you're kinda not saying something else really clearly. Or saying something else not really clearly.

Thats exactly what i am saying in the quote. 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. These parts cause serious rapid fire when installed. So what part of my opinion is confusing?? I say my thoughts plain as day.

 

[ditcherman]

Thats exactly what i am saying in the quote. It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not. It's really no different than a drop in sear...it turns a semi auto into a full auto regardless if by definition it's "1 pull" of the trigger at a time. These parts cause serious rapid fire when installed. So what part of my opinion is confusing?? I say my thoughts plain as day.

Well to answer your last question specifically, “it’s a machine gun part, but only by definition it’s not” does not seem clear at all to me. If I was in your head maybe I’d understand what you mean, but anyway…

I think most here would agree a drop in sear can make a machine gun. A glock switch can make a machine gun.1
A bump stock does not make a machine gun, some plastic thingamajig moves and increases rate of fire, but “the trigger has to move through its range, do its thing, to fire every single round”, which is by definition not a machine gun, or machine gun part.

 

[foszoe]

It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not. .

That's precisely how you get regulatory overreach

 

[Mgderf]

Sorry, WORSER!

Better?

FIFY

 

[Ingomike]

Thats exactly what i am saying in the quote. It's a machinegun part.. but only by definition it's not. It's really no different than a drop in sear...it turns a semi auto into a full auto regardless if by definition it's "1 pull" of the trigger at a time. These parts cause serious rapid fire when installed. So what part of my opinion is confusing?? I say my thoughts plain as day.

So as was famously said, you “know it when you see it”.

That is not a legal definition of anything…

 

[gassprint1]

So as was famously said, you “know it when you see it”.

That is not a legal definition of anything…

Correct..

 

[ditcherman]

Clear as mud.

 

[KLB]

Thats exactly what i am saying in the quote. 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. These parts cause serious rapid fire when installed. So what part of my opinion is confusing?? I say my thoughts plain as day.

 

[chipbennett]

Thats exactly what i am saying in the quote. 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. These parts cause serious rapid fire when installed. So what part of my opinion is confusing?? I say my thoughts plain as day.

Words have meaning. "Machine gun" has specific meaning. The statutory definition of "machine gun" says nothing about rate of fire. So, for you to make this claim: what definition of "machine gun" are you using? Please cite the definition of "machine gun" that includes rate of fire, so that we can discuss it.

Otherwise, we'll just continue to point out that your definition of "machine gun" is incorrect.