ATF Starts Process to Outlaw Bump-Stocks — Act Now!

By Dave Dolbee published on in Gun Gear, News

Late last week, (Friday, March 23, 2018) Attorney General Sessions announced that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has initiated the process to classify bump-stocks as machineguns. The announcement is available on DOJ’s website. If adopted, the rules will amend the ATF’s regulations to “clarify” the terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun” as follows:

Bump Fire stock

The BATFE is seeking to classify bump-stocks as machineguns.

  • Single Function of the Trigger – Single pull of the trigger
  • Automatically – The result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger
  • Machinegun – A device that allows semi-automatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).

These new rules, if adopted, will supersede all prior determinations such that any device that meets these new definitions will qualify as a machinegun. Moreover, if adopted as proposed, those individuals currently owning bump-stock devices will be forced to turn them in or destroy the devices in their possession. Again, it is important to understand that this is only proposed right now, but if you fail to speak up and let your voices be heard these rules will likely go into effect.

ATF is requesting comments from the public with regard to the following five topics:

  1. The scope of the proposed rule, and the definition of “machinegun”
  2. The costs and benefits of the proposed rule, and the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs
  3. The reasonableness of the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with an online presence
  4. How ATF should address bump-stock-type devices that private parties currently possess
  5. The appropriate means of implementing a final rule

It’s up to you. Regardless whether you own—or care to own—a bump-stock, this is another assault on the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. A solution in search of a problem. After all, how many documented instances of a bump-stock be used to commit a crime are there? Where will it stop? After the gun control advocates get a win, do you think they will stop at bump-stocks or triggers?

Take Action

Your voice matters, but only if you make it heard. The next step will be to watch for the official notice to be published in the Federal Register. That will kick off the 90-day comment period. You can also become a force multiplier by sharing this story and encouraging others to make their voices heard as well.

What is your opinion of the ATF’s new proposed regulations? What comment will you leave on the Federal Register? Share your answers in the comment section.

SLRule

Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business, OutdoorRoadmap.com, TheGearExpert.com and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (71)

  • gerald garlinghouse

    |

    first and foremost this proposed “policy” isn’t a law. it’s a policy which will have power of law and is what is meant when someone uses the term “color of law” and simply means that you can be put into a cage for doing something that the government has decided that it doesn’t like. a law is something that the congress and senate has debated and voted on before putting people in cages for doing something that they’ve decided they don’t like. actually laws are very simple and are self evident like something that is obviously wrong like murder or theft because only the government has the right to do those things legally and they don’t like anyone who competes with them.

    Reply

    • Chameleon

      |

      Not only is it a “rule” which has the effect of law, it is an ex-post facto “rule” passed by unelected bureaucrats.

      The ATF already made the determination that bump stocks were legal, which was necessary before they could be manufactured, sold and possessed.

      I have absolutely no interest in bump stocks. I prefer to control where my rounds go rather than spray and pray. We should not give in, even on this. Their strategy is undeniable. They decide that they want to restrict our rights. They paint us as being unwilling to compromise as if it’s a bad thing. The only compromise they offer is HOW MUCH they will be restricted.

      If we compromise on this, they’ll pick another target and we’ll restart this entire process again. They’ll put one big thing on the table and lots of little or undesired things. If we compromise by surrendering the little things, it is true that we saved the big thing, but we will have lost yet another group of little things. They are relentless, and will chip away at our rights until they are nonexistent or we have no means of exercising our rights.

      They constantly call us unreasonable for opposing “common-sense gun control.” See that they would fight as hard as we do if we try to propose “common-sense” abortion restrictions. A firearm MAY be used to end the life of a person, or a group of people. Every abortion MUST end the life of an unborn person.

      Reply

  • KN

    |

    LMAO!! By their own definition, “…without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter…”, EXCLUDES bump-stocks, because your finger is still depressing the trigger each time!

    Reply

  • John Buckley

    |

    Give him the stinking bump stocks… but only in exchange for removing silencers, short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns from the NFC list.

    A riskier ban would be binary triggers, et al. That could too easily reach to any trigger modification. Don’t go there.

    Reply

    • Rodney Steward

      |

      Feinstein has already mentioned ” Anything that enhances any rate of fire”!

      Reply

  • Wayne

    |

    Don’t need a bump stock to achieve high rates of spray and pray.
    Hook thumb of trigger hand in belt loop, grip push forward slightly and fire away.
    If a compilation of alloys and plastics kills people, better ban automobiles cause they are homicidal manics.
    Just Google annual firearms deaths then look up death by car crashes.
    Oh wait look up death by abortion, guess black lives don’t really matter if you count black babies aborted

    Reply

  • Tony

    |

    Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 2018. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Daylight Time on the last day of the comment period.

    Reply

  • Adam Haynes

    |

    1. The term machine gun is a technical term commonly used to describe a type of firearm that is manufactured to be automatic with no select fire. The proposed change would change the entire classification to include semi-automatic firearms that have not inbuilt ability to fire in a fully automatic fashion and instead basis the classification on the abilities of the firearm owner

    2. The cost associated with the proposal would be completely on the firearm owners and accessory manufactures in losses. Furthermore, in referring to #1, there would be no benefit as the effectiveness of such a device is solely dependant upon the ability of the user to operate said device and not the device itself.

    3. As online business is a rapidly growing market that many employ, it is unreasonable to expect every retailer to invest time, effort, and funds where applicable to maintain such a presence as this would simply act as a burden on smaller retailers that do not have the presence as a foundation to start from

    4. It is illogical to expect all owners and retailers of such proposed devices to follow such demand. As such those already on the market and in ownership would have to be grandfathered in to any such proposal or risk violating the 4th and 5th amendment rights of owners that are unaware of the change in classification

    5. There is no possible implementation of the current proposal without the violation of multiple constitutional rights of owners and manufactures as well as any law abiding citizen

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: