Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

[tcecil88]

My thoughts are that while I do not own a bump stock nor do I have plans to, the AFT does not have the authority to regulate them as a machine gun. If they are so bad, then Congress needs to outlaw them through law making. If one scumbag wacko POS hadn't used one to kill a bunch of people, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If we win this at SCOTUS, which I don't think we will, then FRT's and pistol braces will soon follow. We can't keep letting the AFT and the Libtards chip away at the 2A and never get anything in return. Give them bumpstocks, but get suppressors off the NFA in return. Stop giving into them and take things back. Whether you agree with bumpstocks, FRT's or pistol braces is irrelevant. We have to draw a line in the sand and say NO more. For me, it's bumpstocks, FRT's and pistol braces. Not one more thing should be taken from us. Suppressors, Short barreled shotguns and rifles should be removed from the NFA. Full auto is alot of fun, but I can't afford the ammo I know I will use if I had one. That's the main reason I don't want a bumpstock. However, I think that if I did want one, aside from abolishing the NFA all together, then the absolute most I should have to do is fill out a Form 1, pay my $200 and when I get the approval, convert my AR or Glock to full auto and have fun with it. It should be no different than converting one to an SBS or SBR. That's just my 2 cents, YMMV.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Actually, I have no clue what an OPION is. But if you're talking about an opinion? Those are like ***holes: everyone has one, and they all stink. Back to the point: how is your opinion relevant to this discussion, or to the underlying court case?

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.

No, you can't: not legally. Because the actual, statutory definition of "machine gun" includes parts. A Glock sear is a machine gun under the relevant statute.

A bumpstock in my opion is no different.

And this is why your opion [sic] is incorrect. You're welcome to your own opions [sic], but you're not welcome to your own facts.

A bumpstock is not a machine gun. It is not a machine gun part. It doesn't convert a semi-auto rifle into an auto rifle.

People wouldn't buy it if it didn't run the rifle like a full auto..

Bump stocks don't run rifles like full auto, because to run a rifle like full auto would mean one trigger pull yields multiple rounds fired.

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.

Wow. A whole 30 rounds in less than a minute?!? That's not humanly possible without a bump stock!

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I've been there all along. He claims that "machine gun" means "rate of fire", in his opinion.

I hope he never watches a video of Jerry Michulek.

 

[chipbennett]

My thoughts are that while I do not own a bump stock nor do I have plans to, the AFT does not have the authority to regulate them as a machine gun. If they are so bad, then Congress needs to outlaw them through law making. If one scumbag wacko POS hadn't used one to kill a bunch of people, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If we win this at SCOTUS, which I don't think we will, then FRT's and pistol braces will soon follow. We can't keep letting the AFT and the Libtards chip away at the 2A and never get anything in return. Give them bumpstocks, but get suppressors off the NFA in return. Stop giving into them and take things back. Whether you agree with bumpstocks, FRT's or pistol braces is irrelevant. We have to draw a line in the sand and say NO more. For me, it's bumpstocks, FRT's and pistol braces. Not one more thing should be taken from us. Suppressors, Short barreled shotguns and rifles should be removed from the NFA. Full auto is alot of fun, but I can't afford the ammo I know I will use if I had one. That's the main reason I don't want a bumpstock. However, I think that if I did want one, aside from abolishing the NFA all together, then the absolute most I should have to do is fill out a Form 1, pay my $200 and when I get the approval, convert my AR or Glock to full auto and have fun with it. It should be no different than converting one to and SBS or SBR. That's just my 2 cents, YMMV.

Indeed, that is the entire basis of the underlying court case. The ATF has issued a rule-making that changes the statutory definition of "machine gun."

 

[Creedmoor]

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

It's one of two active threads that has beat up a dead horse well past that horse being folded up and buried.

 

[jamil]

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

I would concede a point if made, that in the minds of many, including possibly even the justices, that it’s effectively true. That to them it acts like a machine gun.

I would like the SG to take a Slidefire stock by itself and make him explain how to make it fire in any sense, automatically, semiautomaticaly, even single shot. I’d like the smug ********er to be asked, where does the ammunition get loaded into this thing? Where’s the trigger on it?

I didn’t hear anyone bring up the point that at issue is the fact that by itself, it is not actually a gun, let alone a machine gun. It doesn’t matter if it can increase the rate of fire.

Such a device could be made illegal by law. But a law has to get passed to do so. They’re trying to use regulatory power to make a law that doesn’t exist. SCOTUS needs to tell them they can’t do this. Or the precedent will be set that regulators can make laws that Congress didn’t pass.

 

[KLB]

I've been there all along. He claims that "machine gun" means "rate of fire", in his opinion.

I hope he never watches a video of Jerry Michulek.

 

[KLB]

I would concede a point if made, that in the minds of many, including possibly even the justices, that it’s effectively true. That to them it acts like a machine gun.

I would like the SG to take a Slidefire stock by itself and make him explain how to make it fire in any sense, automatically, semiautomaticaly, even single shot. I’d like the smug ********er to be asked, where does the ammunition get loaded into this thing? Where’s the trigger on it?

I didn’t hear anyone bring up the point that at issue is the fact that by itself, it is not actually a gun, let alone a machine gun. It doesn’t matter if it can increase the rate of fire.

Such a device could be made illegal by law. But a law has to get passed to do so. They’re trying to use regulatory power to make a law that doesn’t exist. SCOTUS needs to tell them they can’t do this. Or the precedent will be set that regulators can make laws that Congress didn’t pass.

The issue with that argument is that there are a number of items that are unable to shoot bullets that are already legally designated as machineguns.

 

[gorge]

I've been there all along. He claims that "machine gun" means "rate of fire", in his opinion.

I hope he never watches a video of Jerry Michulek.

 

[printcraft]

I've been there all along. He claims that "machine gun" means "rate of fire", in his opinion.

I hope he never watches a video of Jerry Michulek.

By that definition an M60 is not a machine gun when compared to a German M42…

 

[chipbennett]

I would concede a point if made, that in the minds of many, including possibly even the justices, that it’s effectively true. That to them it acts like a machine gun.

It does not matter. They can think/believe whatever they want, about the behavior of bump stocks, about the "intent" of the black-letter statutory language, etc. None of that matters. ATF only has regulatory authority to issue rule-making decisions as explicitly derived from the black-letter statutory language.

I would like the SG to take a Slidefire stock by itself and make him explain how to make it fire in any sense, automatically, semiautomaticaly, even single shot. I’d like the smug ********er to be asked, where does the ammunition get loaded into this thing? Where’s the trigger on it?

This is irrelevant semantics, since the statutory language in question includes "parts" in the definition of "machine gun". You could make the same hypothetical for a Glock sear, which in fact does meet the statutory definition of "machine gun".

I didn’t hear anyone bring up the point that at issue is the fact that by itself, it is not actually a gun, let alone a machine gun. It doesn’t matter if it can increase the rate of fire.

That would be a separate challenge to the statutory language, which includes "parts" in the definition of "machine gun".

Such a device could be made illegal by law. But a law has to get passed to do so. They’re trying to use regulatory power to make a law that doesn’t exist. SCOTUS needs to tell them they can’t do this. Or the precedent will be set that regulators can make laws that Congress didn’t pass.

Such a device (e.g. a Glock sear) is, in fact, made illegal by the current statutory definition of "machine gun", by virtue that using said device in a compatible firearm causes that firearm to meet the statutory definition of "machine gun" (i.e. one trigger pull results in more than one round fired).

 

[AndreusMaximus]

By that definition an M60 is not a machine gun when compared to a German M42…

I was actually going to bring up the "grease gun" (M3 submachine gun.) If we're going by rate of fire now, that would definitely not be a machinegun, right?

 

[gassprint1]

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?

That's it, but I'd consider it a part. So many jumping on me for what i believe. Owell..to each their own.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

I applaud this decision, but I still think they're worthless and will never own one. Just seems like a good way to create a lot of empty brass in a hurry and very little else. But I think that those that want them should be able to have them if they want them.

I agree. Great to use if you're shooting $0.15 / rnd ammo for a weekend, but it gets real spendy really fast, and in this economy, you'll be selling your mountain bike on Marketplace just to go shooting for 60 seconds.

 

[chipbennett]

That's it, but I'd consider it a part. So many jumping on me for what i believe. Owell..to each their own.

Of course it's a part. A trigger is a part. A barrel shroud is a part. A stock is a part. An ejection port is a part.

It just isn't a "machine gun" part, per the statutory definition of "machine gun".

 

[gassprint1]

I've been there all along. He claims that "machine gun" means "rate of fire", in his opinion.

I hope he never watches a video of Jerry Michulek.

Thats what everyone know to be of a machinegun. High rate of fire or simple terms..full auto, multiple rounds down barrel quickly. You can't compare a firearms expert into everyday firearms community. Such a small percentage could be that fast with a trigger. Trying to down play me that my opinions don't matter is just a foolish way of saying your better than me or anyone that doesn't fit in your little world...that just doesn't work and i don't think you need to be expressing negativity like that.

 

[gassprint1]

Of course it's a part. A trigger is a part. A barrel shroud is a part. A stock is a part. An ejection port is a part.

It just isn't a "machine gun" part, per the statutory definition of "machine gun".

You got some serious A D D or something?

 

[chipbennett]

Thats what everyone know to be of a machinegun. High rate of fire or simple terms..full auto, multiple rounds down barrel quickly. You can't compare a firearms expert into everyday firearms community. Such a small percentage could be that fast with a trigger. Trying to down play me that my opinions don't matter is just a foolish way of saying your better than me or anyone that doesn't fit in your little world...that just doesn't work and i don't think you need to be expressing negativity like that.

How are you not getting that what "everyone knows" is utterly irrelevant? We are a nation of laws - a constitutional republic. All that matters is what is written in the applicable laws. And the relevant statutory language that defines "machine gun" does not align with what you claim that "everyone know to be [] a machinegun."

I'm not "downplaying" your opinions, any more than I would downplay my own opinions - because all opinions on this matter are irrelevant. But, I'll bite: in what way, exactly, are you claiming that your opinion of what constitutes a "machine gun" is relevant to how this court case plays out?

 

[chipbennett]

You got some serious A D D or something?

I'm an engineer. I'm anal retentive. Possibly borderline OCD.

But what does such ad hominem have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[gorge]

Thats what everyone know to be of a machinegun. High rate of fire or simple terms..full auto, multiple rounds down barrel quickly. You can't compare a firearms expert into everyday firearms community. Such a small percentage could be that fast with a trigger. Trying to down play me that my opinions don't matter is just a foolish way of saying your better than me or anyone that doesn't fit in your little world...that just doesn't work and i don't think you need to be expressing negativity like that.

Define everyone and define machine gun. What is full auto? What is high rate of fire? Have you ever looked at the "Mad Minute" the British came up with prior to WWI? The British were to effective with their bolt actions, the Germans thought they were firing fully automatic weapons at them.