National Bump Stock rule finalized

[ProdigalSon]

The ATF has finalized the ruling classifying bump stocks as machine guns. It will go into effect 90 days after it is published (soon but not yet, it was just signed today). Within that 90 day period, bump stock owners will be able to surrender them to ATF offices or destroy them. After the rule goes into effect, ownership of a bump stock (except for, presumably, class 2/3 FFLs, but I'm not sure) will be a violation of the NFA/Hughes Amendment.

Full rule here:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...ction=click&module=Intentional&pgtype=Article

The document is pretty long (157 pages). They start with the legal justifications. Responses to comments in opposition start on page 32.

Read More

 

[NW Backpacker]

ATF is just one of thousands of little kings that rule us:

 

[308]

What a crock of bubblegum

 

[ProdigalSon]

I like the little kings - they allow people with actual knowledge to detail out the law. If a legislator was a doctor, they'd be in a good situation for making laws on healthcare but hopelessly incompetent with automotive safety, for example. True polymaths who could successfully legislate on everything of governmental interest are vanishingly rare. It's a pretty common complaint amongst gun owners that legislators have no clue when it comes to guns, and that's where the ATF comes in. They may not be perfect, but they're at least a little more knowledgeable.

With that said, I think the ATF's argument is pretty shaky. That they have the authority for this kind of rule making is pretty well established in the US legal system, but the actual factual analysis that they used for determining that unsprung bump stocks are automatic seems pretty thin. It's inevitably going to get challenged, but the only successful challenge could be on those grounds, since the rule making authority is more or less settled. The courts typically defer to agencies unless the plaintiffs can provide convincing expert testimony that the agency determination is not valid, so I'd imagine that this rule is here to stay.

 

[pnw1994]

and the fudds will go "psssh they was nuttin but a gimmick range toy anyway, who needs em? *rings the spitoon*"

Rinse and repeat for your next accessory or mod to go

 

[CountryGent]

Another fine example of the combination of government overreach and human stupidity. Considering the actual definition of a machine-gun under Federal law, this also sets a bad precedence.

 

[cpy911]

So all those people who paid too much for a panic buy will have nothing to show for it. Bummer.

 

[MasterChief]

"Frogs in a pot on the stove"....."catching wild pigs with a fence"......some people will never learn until it's too late...


Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters. - Sallust

 

[DB is Here]

Most can make the same thing occur with an stiff index finger and a loose grip of said semi auto rifle. Will they come after your digits next?

 

[Medic!]

I don't think this will fly?

Supreme Court: No, Government Can't Take Personal Property

''Today, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the text nor history of the Takings Clause suggests that the Constitution treats government appropriation of personal property and real property differently. This principle can be traced back to Magna Carta, and as the court explained, the Fifth Amendment was drafted, in part, "in response to the arbitrary and oppressive mode of obtaining supplies for the army, and other public uses … during the revolutionary war, without any compensation whatever." Further, the majority pointed out that its precedents make clear that there is a "longstanding distinction" between regulations on property and the government occupying or taking away property.

Another issue before the court was whether the government could avoid paying just compensation by allowing the farmers to retain a contingent interest in their property.''





I know this is about Raisins of all things. But it sets a president that property is property and has a value. And that value is according to the seller.

 

[CountryGent]

Perhaps tangentially related, this came out earlier in the month: Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications.

Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed. Except in cases of conditional import determinations, FTISB will not issue a determination on an accessory unless it is attached to the submitted firearm.

If you have previously submitted a sample accessory for classification, FTISB will be returning your sample without classification. FTISB will contact you in the near future with further instructions to facilitate the return of your sample.

 

[ProdigalSon]

Most can make the same thing occur with an stiff index finger and a loose grip of said semi auto rifle. Will they come after your digits next?

I don't think this will fly?

Supreme Court: No, Government Can't Take Personal Property

''Today, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the text nor history of the Takings Clause suggests that the Constitution treats government appropriation of personal property and real property differently. This principle can be traced back to Magna Carta, and as the court explained, the Fifth Amendment was drafted, in part, "in response to the arbitrary and oppressive mode of obtaining supplies for the army, and other public uses … during the revolutionary war, without any compensation whatever." Further, the majority pointed out that its precedents make clear that there is a "longstanding distinction" between regulations on property and the government occupying or taking away property.

Another issue before the court was whether the government could avoid paying just compensation by allowing the farmers to retain a contingent interest in their property. The court rejected the argument that the government need not pay just compensation since the farmers were entitled to receive payment—which some years the government set below the cost of production—for the surrendered raisins.''

I know this is about Raisins of all things. But it sets a president that property is property and has a value. And that value is according to the seller.

DB - they address a similar argument (using belt loops as an example, but same general idea) in the document.

Medic - because the government is not taking or using the stocks for its own purposes, and owners can destroy them on their own rather than submitting them to the ATF for destruction, it's not a governmental taking. It's an exercise of police power. We do ourselves and our cause a disservice by using arguments that are demonstrably incorrect (the document addresses this argument and clearly refutes it).

 

[Medic!]

DB - they address a similar argument (using belt loops as an example, but same general idea) in the document.

Medic - because the government is not taking or using the stocks for its own purposes, and owners can destroy them on their own rather than submitting them to the ATF for destruction, it's not a governmental taking. It's an exercise of police power. We do ourselves and our cause a disservice by using arguments that are demonstrably incorrect (the document addresses this argument and clearly refutes it).

I would say that the Government is taking your property for the purpose of ''Public safety''.
And in order to do that. They must take away ''Real Property'' You purchased and own.

It is Yours and part of your estate. It dose not belong to the people that will benefit from your loss.
You should be compensated. Or the law/ruling struck down.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I think that bump stocks are worthless range toys and that they are "workaround" a ATF rule / guideline.
With that said...

I also dislike the idea of banning a firearm and or accessory , or in this case , classifying a firearm accessory as something it is not.
This ruling is just another , in a long line of infringements.
When the law of the land does everything it can to make exercising a Right a painstaking , tedious process , robbed of all of its meaning , the Right becomes worthless.
Andy

 

[titsonritz]

I think that bump stocks are worthless range toys and that they are "workaround" a ATF rule / guideline.
With that said...

I also dislike the idea of banning a firearm and or accessory , or in this case , classifying a firearm accessory as something it is not.
This ruling is just another , in a long line of infringements.
When the law of the land does everything it can to make exercising a Right a painstaking , tedious process , robbed of all of its meaning , the Right becomes worthless.
Andy

I agree on both points 100%. Bump stocks have never been of interest to me and the only way I'm half way interested is because I'm being told NO. That said, I still think my money is better spent on ammo and/or training.

 

[CountryGent]

It looks like GOA is filing a lawsuit: Gun Owners of America to File Suit Against Arbitrary ATF Bump Stock Ban

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just for the record , regarding my comments in post #14... 'cause I have been called a Fudd and worse before...

I think that if you are a law abiding US citizen , you should be able to own whatever firearms you desire or can afford...Be it a flintlock , the latest issue Infantry rifle or anything in between*...All with the least amount of fuss and or paperwork involved.
Andy
* In short , anything the Army considers as "Small Arms"...
With that said I do know that part of the arms that the English Army wanted to capture at Concord in 1775 , consisted of a privately owned cannon...Just something to ponder on....

 

[HB of CJ]

I am assuming, (dangerous word) that Trump gave the go ahead to the BATFE? This does not bode well for passage of the Hearing Protection Act does it? Or directing the AG to review the Hughes Amendment regarding open new NFA items?

But ... consider where we would be if that woman had won the presidential election.

 

[CountryGent]

It appears three other organizations — Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation — have also filed lawsuits. Details here: BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

 

[titsonritz]

With that said I do know that part of the arms that the English Army wanted to capture at Concord in 1775 , consisted of a privately owned cannon...Just something to ponder on....

What da ya need with a cannon for???