Posted on 03/10/2018 12:47:25 PM PST by Simon Green
In the post-Parkland hysteria, President Trump directed the Department of Justice to perform some regulatory legerdemain where bump fire stocks are concerned. The ATF had long ago passed on the stocks, deeming them perfectly legal accessories for semi-automatic rifles. Now, in a Saturday morning move apparently meant to fly under the radar . . .
The U.S. Department of Justice formally submitted a regulation on Saturday to ban “bump stocks,” a modification to high-capacity rifles that lets them fire like an automatic weapon.
President Donald Trump signed a memorandum in February directing the department to make the regulatory change, which must now be approved by the Office of Management and Budget before it is published and subject to a commentary period.
Nothing to worry about though…that will never get through Congress! Au contraire, mon frere.
The move does not require congressional approval, allowing the administration to side-step what could have been insurmountable pressure from pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association that have worked to erode changes in firearm laws in the wake of mass shootings in Florida and Nevada.
It’s no biggie, though. Really, now many people own, or even want a bump fire stock? This won’t affect me!
Think again. If the DOJ can use regulatory fiat to bring their ban hammer down on bump fire stocks, magically deeming them machine guns, what’s to stop this or, more likely, some future administration from deciding that “high-capacity” 30-round magazines are also unacceptable modifications that facilitate “unnecessary” rates of fire? Or lighter, drop-in triggers? Anything that could plausibly be argued to increase a gun’s “standard” rate of fire.
The NRA was on board with regulating bump fire stocks in theory, but hadn’t signed on to this particular move. This sets a terrible regulatory precedent that will almost surely be expanded and abused again down the road. Will the NRA sue? Will SAF or the GOA?
We haven’t been able to get our mitts on the new DOJ regulatory language yet, but will publish it when it’s available. Stay tuned.
#1 The 2D Amendment says "shall not be infringed." -That includes machineguns; weapons which should've never been made difficult for the general public to own.
#2 It is not a functioning automatic weapon. It is an attachment that causes multiple activations of the trigger group in quick succession - still semiautomatic fire, equating to one round fired per pull of the trigger. Albeit that fire is quicker than with your finger. In order to for it to be a machinegun, or fully automatic weapon it would have to fire multiple continuous rounds with each pull of the trigger. Even a select fire (3rd burst) M16A2 and later variant/M4 is not a machinegun - nor is it full auto.
#3 yielding language to the adversary and those whom wish to infringe on our rights is what screws us over. That holds true even if it is over items with no practical purpose other than amusement. Adding a bumpfire/slidefire stock to a semiauto rifle doesn't make a machinegun/automatic rifle anymore than starting a car and dropping a brick on the gas pedal makes a self-driving car with autopilot.
You can find it in PDF format on the web and download it.
Words cease to have meaning.
I agree with everything you said...which will get you nowhere with the American public at large. You make that speech to 100 people who are not gun owners and you might as well be talking to a wall. All they see is a rifle that fires at a very high rate; an automatic weapon.
Thulsa Doom: “That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?”
Under existing law, they are NOT machine guns because each and every shot, utilizing a bump-fire stock in the slide fire mode requires a separate activation of the trigger. Period. There are NO modifications to the fire control group. Neither the disconnector, the hammer, the selector lever, lower receiver, or the trigger is altered in ANY way. An automatic sear is not added.
One thing that I really like about Free Republic is the amazing incisiveness and the vast quantity of thoughtful and informed analysis and information about a multiplicity of subjects. However, I am EXTREMELY disappointed about much of what has been said of the the bumpfire stock controversy. Much of it sounds has though it was promulgated by the ignorant gun grabbing left.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam infantry and armor combat veteran, and a member of the Illinois National guard for 26 years. I served in a NG Military police battalion has a platoon sergeant and an operations sergeant. I was a certified Illinois State Police Firearms and Defensive tactics instructor, and a member of Special Reaction and SWAT teams. I have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through automatic weapons of all types, belt and magazine fed, tripod and shoulder mounted, ranging from .45 caliber M-3 sub machine guns up to M2A1 40 mm twin anti-aircraft guns mounted on an M-42 self propelled anti-aircraft gun.
I am retired and spend one day a month on the rifle range shooting my AR-15 rifles. When this slide fire device was first introduced, the low cost and novelty intrigued me and I purchased one. It was a bit awkward to use at first, but in one afternoon, after a bit of practice I was able to get 90% of any length burst on a man sized target at 50 yards, which is close to the normal engagement ranges for truly effective full auto fire from shoulder mounted weapons. It is not as useful has a true selective fire assault rifle since it requires two hands to employ, but it DOES have some measure of limited tactical utility for anyone who practices with it. I never really considered this item to be a true tactical instrument, but I did appreciate the ingenuity and thought that went into turning “bump fire’ into almost as accurate a technique has I could use with a true select fire assault rifle.
Experts who have decried the effectiveness of full auto fire from assault rifles and other shoulder fired weapons are largely correct. I was constantly yelling at my squad to use the “auto” location for the selector switch sparingly. Semi-auto fire is usually most desired and superior, and includes the advantages of duration of sustained fire to prevent barrel overheating and enhances ammo expenditure and accuracy. Auto fire from an assault rifle has the following tactical utility, in the final and close in (100 meters or less) stages of an assault, to gain initial fire superiority, to break contact, particularly has a counter ambush technique, when firing along final protective lines when a perimeter is in danger of being overrun, and to support by fire the maneuver tactics of another element. Leaders should be responsible to control the fire of their subordinates to maintain fire discipline, but in those roles that I have outlined, full auto fire is very useful indeed, even if it is simulated auto fire delivered from a bumpstock.
The battle has been joined. The anti-gun hysterics are in full cry. They will never be satisfied until they achieve near total firearm confiscation. The genie is out of the bottle. You cannot stop psychopaths employing bump fire methods unless you can repeal the laws of Newtonian physics. I realize that some sort of regulation will ensue in the wake of this horrific atrocity. But I don’t like it one damn bit. BTW, you can effectively bump fire with a thick rubber band wrapped around the magazine well and on the trigger on an AR-15, while firing thru the sights from the shoulder.
If they do enact this ban, then any so called “compromise” should include repealing the 1986 Hughes Act which caused the prices of full auto weapons to skyrocket by making it impossible to register newly manufactured NFA firearms. There is NO REASON for a legally transferable M-16 to cost over 50,000 dollars. You can be assured that any such owner will be thoroughly vetted by the background check that would be required to purchase one.
Bump stocks are dumb toys, which one guy figured out a unique situation where it’s flaws didn’t much matter, and had a dozen spare rifles on hand. The more direct problem with the laws is that they aren’t defining bump stocks in a way that doesn’t include a lot of mundane items.
The basic problem is that attackers can choose whatever they want to bring, legal or not, so outlawing this or that is just a trivially useful march through outlawing other people’s useful-for-good-purposes stuff. When you outlaw these things - especially poorly defined, simple, or widely available things - at best you’re costing millions to inconvience only the most stupid and unimaginative. At worst you’re depriving people of tools to protect themselves, and making Orwellian criminals.
Article. I, Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
If you’re OK with Trump banning Bump Stocks by executive order and not legislative action because you have no use for one, what other accessories are you willing to allow to be banned simply if Trump wants to? Mag-pul accessories? Optics? Pmags?
By not caring about bump stocks and not fighting Trump on it, you’re making it very easy to ban something else simply with an executive order.
This should scare the hell out of anyone who cherishes the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights...
Actually, you apparently don’t understand what a bump-stock is. If you keep pulling the trigger, it will only fire one round, and will defeat the bump-stock.
The trick with the bump stock is it allows your finger to bounce off the trigger and then pushes the trigger back against your finger - which means the weapon is not in control, or is only loosely in control. It is a toy that scatters a bunch of rounds, and greatly increases your chance of weapon jam, along with several other negative effects on the life of your firearm. That’s why the shooter in Las Vegas had to have a roomful of weapons as he rendered one after another inoperable.
Perhaps that is why there are many people who question how it is that after each school shooting there is an immediate, planned outpouring of political activity. Legislatures that take years to decide on other issues have a bill ready to vote on in hours. And the signs are ready, the buses are hired, and the interviews are taped - even before the bodies are buried.
Nowhere did I say I was in favor of a ban. I said if this ban is now in effect, don’t be caught with one. Have a good evening.
Trump was elected to deal with stupid, emotional arguments put forth by leftists. And often the best approach is just to just listen and say "no".
Scott simply decided that caving in to the leftist media and a bunch of activist liberal high school students would help his chances at election, like a typical RINO.
None of the new limitations on the rights of American citizens will have any effect on future terrorist and murderers, nor will they prevent future attacks by deranged individuals or terrorists. They are just the work of weak politicians currying favor with leftists.
How does your argument for going along with a ban on bump stocks because the public at large thinks they’re scary not apply to banning “assault weapons “?
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous idea. If you study history you will realize that appeasement never works, and leftists never stop. But hey, maybe you are one of those people who think if you just wear the little yellow patch they'll stop bothering you.
Nothing will make the liberal gun grabbers "get off our backs" since their goal is to remove any ability for citizens to defend themselves from the government.
I'd like to see actual data to support that idea. I suspect it is more propaganda than reality.
So don't make that speech. Show those 100 people what happens to unarmed people. Ask them if they would have wanted to have a gun if they were in the hallway when Cruz started shooting. Show them why they need to be able to defend themselves, and their families. You will find that some will join the NRA, or GOA, and some will go off to work on Elizabeth Warren's campaign.
“How does your argument for going along with a ban on bump stocks”
I never said I went along with it...I said I understood why they went with the ban; big difference.
“Show those 100 people what happens to unarmed people.....”
Those are all much better arguments to make and for sure the NRA(and the GOA I’m sure) are gaining members because of it.
Exactly what defines the name of a gun? Is there an official group which names them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.