NRA Supports Bump Stock Regulation

[PoormansMachinegun]

In 1994 we allowed the gun grabbing left to decide that a standard capacity magazine was to be only 10rds.
Now in 2017 we are about to allow the gun grabbing left, with the blessing of the NRA to decide how fast we are allow to pull the trigger? The NRA is claiming they knew nothing about bump fire stocks, yet they allow a few manufactures of bump fire stocks to vend at their conventions. I do believe they did a write up in their American Rifleman magazine as well.

The part that scares me the most is the language of Dianne Feinsteins bill titled " Automatic gunfire prevention act" that reads " 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or POSSESS, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or ANY PART, COMBINATION OF PARTS, COMPONENT, device, attachment, or accessory THAT is designed or FUNCTIONS TO ACCELERATE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Let look at the capitalized language in her bill.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, any part, combination of parts,component that functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi automatic rifle." Being that most semi automatic firearms can be manipulated rapidly, or bump fire without the use of any device. How would her bill not re-classify most semi auto firearms as being prohibited? Trigger & disconnector springs in AR15 could be considered as "any part, or combination of parts." Regardless of what you think of these devices, any bill needs to be squashed.

 

[mcapo]

The above recitation of the Feinstein bill is exactly why the NRA is calling for the BATF to (re-re-) review their findings. I'm not thrilled with the NRA's stance but it is pragmatic.

The legislation is bad. Very bad. Worse even...much worse than the BATF reclassifying bump stocks as an NFA item.

Like it or not; a cognizant argument, GIVEN THE CURRENT LAWS, cannot be made in support of non-regulated sales of a device that replicates full auto operation. That's the reality.

Ideally, the NFA would be rescinded or drastically re-written but any chance of that falls far behind the suppressor bill which was DOA in the Senate before Vegas and has little chance of seeing the light of day for a long time.

 

[PoormansMachinegun]

The above recitation of the Feinstein bill is exactly why the NRA is calling for the BATF to (re-re-) review their findings. I'm not thrilled with the NRA's stance but it is pragmatic.

The legislation is bad. Very bad. Worse even...much worse than the BATF reclassifying bump stocks as an NFA item.

Like it or not; a cognizant argument, GIVEN THE CURRENT LAWS, cannot be made in support of non-regulated sales of a device that replicates full auto operation. That's the reality.

Ideally, the NFA would be rescinded or drastically re-written but any chance of that falls far behind the suppressor bill which was DOA in the Senate before Vegas and has little chance of seeing the light of day for a long time.

I would be surprised if the ATF comes back a reclassified the bump-fire stocks as being a machine gun. For one the trigger is "functioned" for every round fired. Secondly machine guns are not defined by how fast they empty a magazine! So that leave us with fighting legislation.

 

[mcapo]

The BATF has a tough call to make. I am not NFA expert but did notice the below language in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) which has some applicability. "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" then falls under regulation.

To your point, it does define a machine gun as operating full auto with a single pull of the trigger.

It is vicious circle sliding down a slippery slope...

 

[PoormansMachinegun]

The BATF has a tough call to make. I am not NFA expert but did notice the below language in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) which has some applicability. "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" then falls under regulation.

To your point, it does define a machine gun as operating full auto with a single pull of the trigger.

It is vicious circle sliding down a slippery slope...

Semi autos rate of fire is only limited on how fast the shooter can manipulate the trigger. Slide fire stocks, Tac trigger, Hellfire trigger, even my EBR 5000 Trigger Manipulator Bands don't cause a semi-automatic firearm to fire rapidly it merely makes initiating a bump fire sequence easier. If a reclassification is made by ATF, or legislation is passed, semi autos will be next on the list.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would be surprised if the ATF comes back a reclassified the bump-fire stocks as being a machine gun. For one the trigger is "functioned" for every round fired. Secondly machine guns are not defined by how fast they empty a magazine! So that leave us with fighting legislation.

Don't put it past the BATFE to redefine "machine gun."

 

[ATM]

The BATF has a tough call to make...

Not really, they've already made that call and nothing has changed since then. Why would their conclusion change if the product hasn't?

 

[mcapo]

If a reclassification is made by ATF, or legislation is passed, semi autos will be next on the list.

I am sure you meant to say, "IS ALREADY next on the list of the liberal anti-gun left".

Maintaining Republican majorities will be critical in the mid-term elections.

For those of us that remember; 1994 was just yesterday and could easily be repeated tomorrow.

 

[KLB]

Don't put it past the BATFE to redefine "machine gun."

Not sure how they would do that when it is defined in the law.

[FONT=&amp]For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:[/FONT]

• 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

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0

 

[mcapo]

Not really, they've already made that call and nothing has changed since then. Why would their conclusion change if the product hasn't?

Why? It's a governmental agency. I work in the banking sector - it is not all uncommon for regulators to say; "Yea, we said that was ok; but we have re-evaluated our position and you are now out of compliance as a result of following our previously stated postion".

 

[JollyMon]

ATF could always expand on the nonsporting lingo....

 

[mcapo]

Not sure how they would do that when it is defined in the law.


https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0

Here is the actual language of the Code without the bullet points.

(b)MachinegunThe 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.

 

[KLB]

ATF could always expand on the nonsporting lingo....

Doesn't that only affect imports?

 

[ATM]

Why? It's a governmental agency. I work in the banking sector - it is not all uncommon for regulators to say; "Yea, we said that was ok; but we have re-evaluated our position and you are now out of compliance as a result of following our previously stated postion".

If you come up with any reason their conclusion would change, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not sure how they would do that when it is defined in the law.


https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0

"Re-define"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here is the actual language of the Code without the bullet points.

(b)MachinegunThe 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.

Remove the word trigger, and you've covered bump stocks. The "single function," (given the finger does not actively engage the trigger, as far as pulling) being the pulling forward of the receiver.

 

[mcapo]

If you come up with any reason their conclusion would change, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Without being versed enough to quote from memory but didn't the BATF do exactly this (change their conclusion) in regard to braces a few years back before changing their mind again?

 

[jamil]

If you come up with any reason their conclusion would change, I'd be interested in hearing it.

There’s not a good one. Because of the language of the current law, if the ATF does re-define the regs such that it prohibits bump-fire and crank devices, it will be because they’re told to. I think bump fire stocks are legal now because there’s no way the law makes guns equipped with them fit the legal definition of machine guns.

 

[ATM]

Without being versed enough to quote from memory but didn't the BATF do exactly this (change their conclusion) in regard to braces a few years back before changing their mind again?

Perhaps, but, again, I'd be interested in hearing why their conclusion changed if nothing else did.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why? It's a governmental agency. I work in the banking sector - it is not all uncommon for regulators to say; "Yea, we said that was ok; but we have re-evaluated our position and you are now out of compliance as a result of following our previously stated postion".

Yes over stepping by bureaucrats is rampant, but unconstitutional.