ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comments

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comments

Postby Bruenor » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:29 am

Will this be restricted to bump stocks, or other devices as well, binary triggers, etc..

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ar-devices
The ATF’s intention to redefine the term “machinegun” was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. The agency is accepting public comments on their plans for backdoor gun control from now until late January.

Their announcement says, “Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Standard Time on the last day of the comment period.”


The ATF/DOJ push for redefining the term “machinegun” would essentially eliminate any difference between accessories and conversion devices, treating both categories as a means of converting semiautomatics into full autos. This, in turn, would bring bump stocks under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934), requiring that the accessories be registered with the government and that owners of bump stocks be fingerprinted, photographed, and required to undergo a background check.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 6059
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comm

Postby M-Quigley » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:50 am

The ATF/DOJ push for redefining the term “machinegun” would essentially eliminate any difference between accessories and conversion devices, treating both categories as a means of converting semiautomatics into full autos. This, in turn, would bring bump stocks under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934), requiring that the accessories be registered with the government and that owners of bump stocks be fingerprinted, photographed, and required to undergo a background check.


And all of which the Las Vegas shooter could've easily done. He had allegedly been starting to buy his weapons a year prior, giving him time to get through the ATF system, and according to what I've read so far had a cleaner criminal record than some LEO's. Heck, this guy had enough money a year prior to forgo bump stocks completely and purchase the real thing. :roll:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2784
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comm

Postby bignflnut » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:55 am

The document comment period ends on January 25, the notice continues, providing ways to send them in either by mail or via a submission form. The notice also provides background information, including a summary of claimed statutory authority as well as the ”justification” for the proposed rule, which unsurprisingly relies heavily on last October’s Las Vegas music festival murders to make the case that such controls are needed. Seeing as how investigators have been tight-lipped, that an inconsistent narrative has resulted in plenty of distrust and no small amount of “conspiracy theories” and an FBI estimate that a final report could not be ready until the anniversary of the killings, apportioning blame to bump stocks that are owned by plenty of Americans who don’t abuse them seems more than a bit of a rush to judgment.
Why wouldn't string be included in the rule?

Even more problematic would be that they would be proving new restrictions would make a bit of difference outside of infringing on the rights of those inclined to obey such edicts. After all, “bump firing” can not only be accomplished with a shoestring, another item ATF once claimed regulatory jurisdiction over, but also with a finger.

Why not ban fingers and string?

Here’s the thing: Hard core gun owner advocates are having real problems with establishment types crafting compromises on mental health, on “Fix NICS” and on bump stocks. Republican majorities are in the House and in the Senate, and a Republican president is in the White House. They wouldn't be there were it not for gun owners. Why are we talking more “gun control”? And in spite of those majorities, it’s beginning to look like the much-trumpeted “national reciprocity” trade-off may be “going nowhere”.

“[T]he Senate version … remains in the Senate Judiciary Committee and may never be presented for a vote as Democrats, and some Republicans, challenge supporters’ claims that national reciprocity would clarify confusion in negotiating the state-by-state matrix of concealed carry laws.”
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6124
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comm

Postby WestonDon » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:23 pm

This is bad....Real bad.

To answer the question posed in the OP, no, this will not be restricted to "bump stocks" or "other devices", however that is defined. as has been mentioned in other threads simulating full auto fire can be accomplished by a variety of methods. Heck, even a bad case of Parkinson's would probably do it.

This is a straight up attempt to control rate of fire of semi auto firearms. We do NOT want that ship to leave the dock.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: ATF looks to redefine term "Machinegun" - accepting comm

Postby sd790 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:18 pm

I do not own a bumpstock and have little interest in them. I am VERY interested with any attempt to limit the freedom of any American to own any accessory for their firearms.

The ATF is seeking public comment for their Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices, so we need to give them our comments.

Submit your comments to ATF here.

Here is what I wrote. Feel free to copy or use in any way.
I adamantly oppose the changing the definition of machinegun to include "Bump Fire" stocks and other similar devices.

1. The bump fire technique can be performed without using a special stock.

2. The definition of constitutionally protected devices (firearms, including machineguns) must not be arbitrarily changed to serve the whims of politicians who do not even have a basic understanding of firearms, bump stocks, or the current restrictions that we already have in place.

3. Allowing the definition to be changed will open the door to other definitions to be arbitrarily changed. What if the definition of machinegun were to be changed to any firearm that can shoot more than 6 rounds without reloading? Would that change be any different, process-wise, than this redefinition?

NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
User avatar
sd790
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:40 pm
Location: Delaware


Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests