Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Now I want to try that... LOL

Iknowright?

 

[dung]

Iknowright?

Ditto here!

 

[indygunguy]

Ditto here!

You guys who want to try them, shoot me a pm. You can borrow mine. I haven’t used mine in years, and they are kinda fun.

 

[Floivanus]

Fill me in please. I don't have a bump stock, don't want a bump stock, and have paid little attention to all the associated hoopla. However, upthread, I see that the ATF says there are 500+ thousand of them already out there. How would they know that? Where would that data come from? Does the ATF know you bought a bump stock? Just scratching my head, here.

The biggest source they had was slidefire’s order list (either directly or to dealers) which alone was 520,000 units, toss in products like bumpski, bair arms, akins accelerator, the 3d printed ones that float around... Their estimate is low, way low.

ATF was going thru Slidefire’s records because of Vegas

 

[worddoer]

Bumping this thread to bring awareness and hopefully bring some introspection to some.

I don't know a lot about getting Twitter to embed on INGO, so this is a cropped image. If someone else knows how to embed a tweet, please share.

Link where I got this info here.....

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/10/daniel-zimmerman/gun-control-dont-be-part-of-the-problem/

 

[d.kaufman]

Thought id bump this thread.

Any news on this being as the original link in post was that it was a couple weeks away? Here we are over a month later and I've heard nothing but crickets since.

 

[Hotrod29]

I have not heard anything further but I'm sure it hasn't been forgotten

 

[T.Lex]

It appears that the rulemaking is still going on, probably waiting until after the midterms for finalization.

 

[Trigger Time]

If they ban them we just need to donate money to whoever takes them (the feds) to the supreme court

 

[Mongo59]

Maybe we should design a bump stock for a Handi-rifle or Pardner and tie up the government brain trusts with trying to figure out how to deal with it...

 

[Hotrod29]

Plot twist

Jeff Sessions fired/resigns because he is forced to tell President Trump that there is no legal remedy to ban bumpstocks as machine guns

Theory?? lol

 

[T.Lex]

Plot twist

Jeff Sessions fired/resigns because he is forced to tell President Trump that there is no legal remedy to ban bumpstocks as machine guns

Theory?? lol

I seriously doubt it.

IMHO, ATF does have the authority to ban bumpstocks, if they follow the appropriate process to do so.

 

[Bobby]

Remind me again how pro-2nd Amendment Donald Trump is? Ironically, Obama was against the 2nd Amendment even more the current President yet he followed the law concerning bump stocks. The news story below came out this morning and sounds like bump stocks are officially an NFA item. You know what is interesting? The ruling by the ATF is saying bump stocks allow a continuous stream of fire based on one squeeze of the trigger which we all know that IS NOT true. Current law is clear that a machine gun fires multiple shots from one squeeze of the trigger. So, if the ATF can just say that a accessory on an AR15 falls under NFA rules, how likely is it that the next Democratic President will say that magazines, collapsible stocks, and pistol grips also fall under the same rules? Basically, banning the AR15 without having to change current law? I think we are going to see lawsuits coming on multiple fronts.



https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...re-now-machineguns-fall-under-nfa-regulation/

 

[T.Lex]

After the midterms, right on schedule.

And who really thinks Trump isn't a politician now?

When I looked at this before, the fact that someone can use string or just train themselves to bumpfire was a reason to take these off the market, since equivalent techniques are available.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Freakin' republicans.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

That song makes a lot of political sense...at least that one line of that song does.

 

[churchmouse]

This **** is endless.

 

[Hotrod29]

Just think of all the new "machine gun" posts the NFA forum will have

 

[AmmoManAaron]

In for the eventual lawsuits!

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1140-AA52

"The rule will be "economically significant," that is, the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. ATF estimates the total cost of this rule at $320.9 million over 10 years. The total 7% discount cost is estimated at $234.1 million, and the discounted costs would be $39.6 million and $39.2 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively. The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time."

 

[dukeboy_318]

Whoa Whoa. Back the train up. Lets read the actual ruling. I'm not so sure they are going to do a single thing about them. It says here, that short of Congressional Action, they cannot ban or regulate them. So I'm confused, are they or aren't they?

DOJ/ATF

RIN: 1140-AA52

Publication ID: Fall 2018

Title: Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Abstract:The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that would interpret the statutory definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that definition.
Agency: Department of Justice(DOJ)	Priority: Economically Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: Yes	Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Regulatory
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478 27 CFR 479
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq. 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.

Legal Deadline: None

Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

Summary of the Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the definition of machinegun proposed for adoption in this rule is expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.

Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Absent congressional action, the only feasible alternative is to maintain the status quo.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The rule will be "economically significant," that is, the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. ATF estimates the total cost of this rule at $320.9 million over 10 years. The total 7% discount cost is estimated at $234.1 million, and the discounted costs would be $39.6 million and $39.2 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively. The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time. This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.

Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the widespread availability to the public of bump-stock-devices.

 

[Hotrod29]

Whoa Whoa. Back the train up. Lets read the actual ruling. I'm not so sure they are going to do a single thing about them. It says here, that short of Congressional Action, they cannot ban or regulate them. So I'm confused, are they or aren't they?

DOJ/ATF

RIN: 1140-AA52

Publication ID: Fall 2018

Title: Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Abstract:The Department of Justice is issuing a rulemaking that would interpret the statutory definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as bump-fire stocks, fall within that definition.
Agency: Department of Justice(DOJ)	Priority: Economically Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda	Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: Yes	Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Regulatory
CFR Citation: 27 CFR 478 27 CFR 479
Legal Authority: 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq. 26 U.S.C. 5841 et seq.

Legal Deadline: None

Statement of Need: This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

Summary of the Legal Basis: The Attorney General has express authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926 to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States Code. The detailed legal analysis supporting the definition of machinegun proposed for adoption in this rule is expressed in the abstract for the rule itself.

Alternatives: There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rule that would allow ATF to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Absent congressional action, the only feasible alternative is to maintain the status quo.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The rule will be "economically significant," that is, the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. ATF estimates the total cost of this rule at $320.9 million over 10 years. The total 7% discount cost is estimated at $234.1 million, and the discounted costs would be $39.6 million and $39.2 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively. The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time. This rule provides significant non-quantifiable benefits to public safety. Among other things, it clarifies that a bump-stock-type device is a machinegun and limits access to them; prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes; reduces casualties in mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas shooting; and helps protect first responders by preventing shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a semiautomatic firearm automatically.

Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the widespread availability to the public of bump-stock-devices.

They are saying that they cannot regulate bumpstocks without this rule (reclassification as mg's) unless Congress passes legislation to ban them. So basically they are saying, if you want us to regulate them without Congressional action, we have to call them machine guns