Bumpstocks: If You Can’t Win, Change the Rules

By Dave Dolbee published on in News

Bumpstocks have been on the hit list for some time now. Not because they are intrinsically dangerous in the hands of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, but because one miscreant, a murderer, decided to use one in a horrific crime. Politicians and anti gunners, as usual, have decided to blame the implement and not the criminal. As a result, under the direction of President trump, the Department of Justice has reclassified bump stocks as machine guns. The ruling becomes official when it is placed on the Federal Register, likely this Friday, December 21, 2018. At that time, it will kick off a 90-day clock to either destroy or surrender your scapegoat bumpstock.

Bump Fire stock

On the urging of President Trump, The DOJ has reclassified bump-style stocks as machine guns.

Previously, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had classified bumpstocks as an accessory. Due to the recoil of the firearm, the trigger was depressed and reached reset. Therefore, it was not considered an automatic weapon or machine gun. However, President Trump called on the Justice Department to ban bump stocks. As a result, the Justice Department took a “fresh look” at the case law, technology, and the devices and their functionality “in light of modern developments.” Lo and behold, the Justice Department magically concluded that bump-fire stocks, “slide-fire” devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a “shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger,” and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.

The question was posed, “How many of bump fire-style devices are out there?” Since they were not previously regulated, no one actually knows. As one official said, “bump stocks aren’t widespread, but they are not uncommon. Isn’t there something about “in common usage” that might apply here?

 Surrender or be Destroyed

“A current possessor may destroy the device or abandon it at the nearest ATF office, but no compensation will be provided for the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to its intended function.”

President Trump said he would never go against the Second Amendment. Do you consider this an infringement against the Second Amendment? While bump-style stocks are not the most important thing on my wish list, any infringement is a step too far and a slippery slope in my opinion. I am sure many of you feel the same. However, before the Trump bashing gets out of control, think of the alternative had Trump not been elected—President Hillary Clinton. This is a loss in my opinion, but we are still way ahead with President Trump as far as the 2A fight goes.

This ban is not unexpected. In October, President Trump told the National Rifle Association that “bump stocks are gone.” A spokesperson for the NRA said in October 2017 that the ATF “should review bump-fire stocks to ensure they comply with federal law,” but made clear that the NRA opposed the broader gun-control legislation raised by some in Congress.

Pro Second Amendment groups are surely lining up to file suit to block the new bump stock ban. Which group or groups do you think have the best chance at overturning the DOJ’s ruling? Do you think bump-style stocks should be classified as machine guns? Share your answers in the comment section.

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 (45)

  • Darthy Emerson

    |

    I have a bump stock I am a excellent marksman crooks are always going to have guns
    the difference in a bump stock and just shooting is like the difference of getting one Rose compared to a dozen Roses
    the main reason bump’s are a part of a gun any cutting of the the 2nd A will result in several more
    like trying to stop being able to buy ammunition it is not the item it is the shaving of the 2A we need not to forget Hitler and the Jew’s

    Reply

  • George Warren Dean

    |

    Amen!

    Reply

  • knight2

    |

    Nope! Wouldn’t do it. Even if I owned one I would not surrender anything I would of bought legally or be punished for the crimes of one man let alone without compensation. Give “them” an inch and they want a mile. They won’t be happy until you have a black power rifle with lead balls to shoot.Are you going to turn in your 30..60..100 round magazines next?
    Have a background check to purchase ammo? It’s not the crminals they’re after….it’s you. To disarm and control.

    Reply

  • Jessica

    |

    The anti-ban arguments for bumpstocks here are essentially all of the “slippery slope” variety. You’re aware that slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy, right?

    There’s a lot of valid positions to take in defense of the 2nd Amendment, but this one is not the hill to die on.

    Reply

    • Robert

      |

      Given the propensity for any government to take power from the citizen I don’t see how the “slippery slope” argument is a logical fallacy. It is the modus operandi of government. With the creeping Socialism that has infested our government for a century banning bump stocks is just one more in a long series of abuses of our individual liberty.

      I don’t own a bump-stock and I had actually never heard of them until the Las Vegas shooter so this law does not affect me personally but that’s not the point. The point is to stop the government from taking any more of our liberties and reverse the advances of Socialism in our government before we become the “former land of the free.”

      Reply

    • John

      |

      which hill is the one to die on?

      Perhaps you have heard the saying:

      First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a socialist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

      Reply

  • Clifffalling

    |

    Read the news on RBG. While i wish her no ill will, it appears that the Donald may get another SCOTUS pick. This may be a turning point and SCOTUS may hear some of these cases. If so, hopefully the court will make some decisions in our favor.

    Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    @ Pete.

    If I wanted a “Firehouse” for a Firearm, I’d buy myself a PPSh-41. I personally enjoy Bolt-Action Rifles. I’m NOT in a Hurry to KILL the First thing that crosses my path…

    Reply

  • Pete In Alaska

    |

    …. and so it begins.
    What is next? This decision will be applauded and used to further change and restrict our 2A Right. What other Rights will be changed for political expediency,what other restrictions might follow to further control We The Prople. It’s done now. It can never be called back. The presisdent has been set and will become the vechical to further misuse of governmental power.
    It was a brilliant move, an item that most everyone agrees is of little use or service. Has now unlocked the door to for those who would do nearly anything to increase their power and decrease that of the People’s.
    One insane, disturbed, deranged persons horrendous act has caused this sweeping decision, which may now be used to effect changes that may cause far reaching and greater upheaval in our country.
    All the legendary dictators agree on several points when they spoke of acquiring and holding on to power.
    Control the Press. The narrative is essential to control.
    Disarm the general population. Remove the ability of the people to defend themselves, or rise up in decent.
    In this country it does not take much research or a great deal of logic to see the direction that political leadership seems to be taking on “our behalf”.
    The middle ground is abandoned and with
    It our ability to find solutions and compromise which has been this nations streanth since its founding.
    There is no clairity to this path we find ourselves on where and how it will end is unknown.
    That this single watershed event, this decision, may well be the first true unrepairanle crack in the wall built of our Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Time will tell us the answer.
    I don’t know how it is expected that this decision will be enforced, or even if it can. The decision is not what the problem is.
    I’m a Conservitive Constutionalist … neither Republican or Democrat. I don’t see this decision being made with the well being of the People in mind.
    I belive that the issue of bump stocks is unimportant when one considers the smoke an mirrors its being used for to conceal the further reaching implacations of this decision to “deal” with this issue.

    Reply

  • Dale

    |

    Like usual, punish the gun, not the criminal. It’s only a (dangerous) weapon if that’s what you intend to be. I can take an ordinary pen and use it as a stabbing weapon. I can take a roll of quarters, put it in a sock and have a blackjack. I can take a set of keys, put a key in-between my fingers and make a fist and punch someone. Ouch, that would hurt. Again, it’s only a weapon if you intend to use it as a weapon. Where will it end?

    Reply

  • Kelly Mulvaney

    |

    No need for them, I am avid gun owner and any item that can make a weapon faster then semi auto should be Banned. TY.

    Reply

    • Pete

      |

      So you would then be OK with bolt action and banning semi-auto since no one needs a gun faster than a bolt action? Where does it stop. I do not own a bumpstock and really don’t see a reason for owning one, but some people do and it is a slippery slope.

      Reply

    • Norman Morris

      |

      Banning something because it’s “faster than semi-auto” means that by definition all selective fire Class III NFA Firearms should be banned. And frankly I think that’s a ridiculous idea. One motivated person with a 10 rd magazine .308 bolt action rifle using aimed fire could do far more damage than someone spraying and praying hundreds of unaimed rounds downrange.

      By advocating the banning of anything, you’re saying that the object is responsible for the action and not the person, and sound just like the gun banners when you spout that nonsense.

      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: