Some new movement on the bump stock fiasco

Mwalex

Private
Belligerents
Jun 8, 2011
1,864
3,739
219
53
Just read this on The Firearms Blog and wanted to share with the board:

ATF did a boo-boo

ATF admits they screwed the pooch but does that change anything at this point? We will have to wait and see.
 

lonegunman762x51

Msgt
Belligerents
Apr 8, 2011
292
510
99
Eastern Washington
Democrats in Germany did not "have the right" to round up Jews, gypsies and other people they disliked and yet they did it. Today, as we speak, democrats in China are rounding up ethnic Muslims for "reeducation" and extermination if they decline.

Democrats do not have the right to violently attack people in the streets for wearing a red ball cap but they do. Democrats are standing on stage at debates declaring they will stack the courts with leftist judges who decide cases based on party doctrine and not existing laws, seize property illegally and disassemble the Constitution thru executive order.

Keep voting for Democrats and watch your rights and freedoms disappear.
 
Last edited:

MadDuner

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Sep 6, 2019
120
163
49
So it appears they “did something” and temporarily appeased the gun grabbers, but now that it’s known that the move was illegal - they should be able to back out of it and it will be just another unenforced bit of stupidity. Let’s hope it works that way.
 

Mwalex

Private
Belligerents
Jun 8, 2011
1,864
3,739
219
53
I don't think it was a boo boo or accident.

I think Barr and Trump did this deliberately knowing it wouldn't survive legal muster in the first place.

It was so badly written and stood in the face of stare decis on so many points it couldn't have been an accident.

I think this was a Trojan horse from the beginning and this moves to shore that view up a good bit.
By boo-boo I meant something that they should not have done, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Your take on what happened is very interesting - do something to appease the Demokrats but set it up to fail a legal review. That is interesting and pretty smart if that was the plan. We will have to see what happens next as we all know this saga will continue.
 

pmclaine

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Nov 6, 2011
12,798
13,847
219
51
MA
Lets hope this does not result in law revision that changes the definition of what a machine gun is to something that would include a Ruger 10/22.
 

TacticalDillhole

Shiner of shoes
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jun 26, 2012
4,273
3,451
219
N. Carolina
I hope everyone understands the significance of this and doesn't lose or fail to see the importance because of it being droned out in a literal sea of legaleze- in laymans English. ( for those who don't want to wade through the mire)

Congress made a law way back and specifically and in a very detailed manner defined a "machine gun" ( fires more than 1 round by design with a single trigger pull). There is no vagueness or ambiguity there and no room for an alternate interpretation.

One pull- one round is not and cannot be a "machine gun" by the statute no matter how fast you pull the trigger.

That's codified law and only another codified law can change that.

This is where the "bump stock ban" fails the test because a "bump stock" only fires one round per pull. It doesn't disable or replace the trigger or modify the weapons design.

Some are trying to argue that they can do this under APA 46 but that only gives limited authority to interpret a law- not FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE one like would be required to "change the definition of a machine gun".

There is no fundamental legal evolution from "one pull- multiple rounds" to equality with pulling faster each time. ( that's the test basically the Chevron case requires)

In this case it can look like a duck, quack like a duck and have feathers but its still a mechanical decoy and not a duck.
The bump stock doesn’t fire anything, just to put it in layman’s terms.
 

TacticalDillhole

Shiner of shoes
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jun 26, 2012
4,273
3,451
219
N. Carolina
Negative Ghostrider, I was speaking in reference to legalese of the ruling and quite specific. the ATF ruling made the bump stock a "machine gun" ( not a part converting a gun to fully automatic)- not me so in light of the "ruling" a "machinegun" shoots bullets- does it not?

Fundamentally and mechanically you are correct and I concur but "common sense" and political rulings have seldom mixed well together.

But that's one point that illustrates how fatally flawed the ruling was when it was written.
You said and I quote

“This is where the "bump stock ban" fails the test because a "bump stock" only fires one round per pull. It doesn't disable or replace the trigger or modify the weapons design.”

I was merely clarifying while yes I 100% agree with you on the why but it’s important to note that a bump stick doesn’t fire anything which is the main reason the ruling fails and illegally redefined machine gun.
 

MinnesotaMulisha

Head MF Door Keeper
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jul 30, 2013
1,726
1,695
219
Wyoming, MN
I don't think it was a boo boo or accident.

I think Barr and Trump did this deliberately knowing it wouldn't survive legal muster in the first place.

It was so badly written and stood in the face of stare decis on so many points it couldn't have been an accident.

I think this was a Trojan horse from the beginning and this moves to shore that view up a good bit.
Trump knew this? I'm calling bullshit. The man couldn't find his zipper in a dark room.
 

SilentStalkr

Wonna Be Badass
Belligerents
Oct 8, 2012
2,671
2,091
219
39
Somewhere in the US
Yep. Now just think how many were destroyed by this illegal law. I’m getting really sick of these laws being created by those who have no authority to do so and having it stand until the courts figure it out. That can sometimes be years that an illegal law is in effect. Don’t follow unconstitutional laws lol, I guess. Will be interesting to see where this goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunman_7

broncoaz

Gary Coleman told me to F off
Belligerents
Feb 1, 2007
216
174
49
Flagstaff, AZ
Yep. Now just think how many were destroyed by this illegal law. I’m getting really sick of these laws being created by those who have no authority to do so and having it stand until the courts figure it out. That can sometimes be years that an illegal law is in effect. Don’t follow unconstitutional laws lol, I guess. Will be interesting to see where this goes.
Every time the GOP calls looking for money I tell them I’ll be happy to donate when Trump sends me a check for my bumpstock that I was forced to destroy. I saved the box, pieces, and receipt in case the rule ever got reversed.
 

TxWelder35

Online Training Member
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 17, 2018
326
296
69
DFW
This is twice today I have seen this photo here.

Can anyone tell me the back story?
Some clown rapper busted for gang shenanigans and ratted on a bunch of other clown rappers for playing gang also
 

Nik H

Constantly Learning
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 22, 2014
6,310
5,284
219
Rhode Island
You miss ( or are deliberately ignoring) the point

From the Appeal in section I; I quote

"--- expand the definition of a "machine gun" to NOW INCLUDE BUMPSTOCKS" ( emphasis mine)

So in the eyes of the "law' the bumpstick is a firearm ( not a part of one) therefore in the eyes of the law ( which is what is being discussed) it is.

This is different than the drop in sear debacle from the 80's because that is designated a "part" but the bump stock is an accessory so it had to be declared itself a firearm otherwise it couldn't be banned in the first place under the NFA. ( without legislatively changing it)

That's all
It is an accessory much like the pistol braces. The rules as I understand them is that an accessory does not change the fundamental classification of the firearm. The bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle to a fully automatic one. Therefore, how can you ban an accessory using the logic (or lack thereof) that the ATF used.
This is entirely analogous to the pistol brace/OAL/VFG ruling. Many consider a VFG nothing more than an accessory but it isn’t. When applied to a pistol (less than 26” AND designed to be fired with one hand) it changes the classification. The VFG now makes it a firearm designed to be fired with two hands. Since OAL is < 26”, it is not a rifle. It is not a pistol either so technically it becomes an AOW. The new ruling relative to how to measure OAL is directly related to the fact that the brace is an ACCESSORY and not an integral part of the firearm that makes it a rifle. Braces are a pistol accessory so it is measured in a minimum length configuration. A stock is part of a rifle, therefore, it is measured in its fully extended position.

At any rate, I hope it is struck down and provides a much needed precedent to finally close out calling an AR15 a weapon of war. Absolutely foolish and incredibly powerful argument that the left uses that works due to the incredible ignorance of the public.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lapuapalooza

SilentStalkr

Wonna Be Badass
Belligerents
Oct 8, 2012
2,671
2,091
219
39
Somewhere in the US
It is an accessory much like the pistol braces. The rules as I understand them is that an accessory does not change the fundamental classification of the firearm. The bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle to a fully automatic one. Therefore, how can you ban an accessory using the logic (or lack thereof) that the ATF used.
This is entirely analogous to the pistol brace/OAL/VFG ruling. Many consider a VFG nothing more than an accessory but it isn’t. When applied to a pistol (less than 26” AND designed to be fired with one hand) it changes the classification. The VFG now makes it a firearm designed to be fired with two hands. Since OAL is < 26”, it is not a rifle. It is not a pistol either so technically it becomes an AOW. The new ruling relative to how to measure OAL is directly related to the fact that the brace is an ACCESSORY and not an integral part of the firearm that makes it a rifle. Braces are a pistol accessory so it is measured in a minimum length configuration. A stock is part of a rifle, therefore, it is measured in its fully extended position.

At any rate, I hope it is struck down and provides a much needed precedent to finally close out calling an AR15 a weapon of war. Absolutely foolish and incredibly powerful argument that the left uses that works due to the incredible ignorance of the public.
I still don’t know anyone that shoots a pistol with one hand unless they absolutely have to. That entire argument about what classifies as a pistol based on how many hands is used to fire it is complete nonsense!!