BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

[Soccerdad1995]

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

[ScottDLS]

Are bump stocks really the hill we want to die on? They already want to take our AR15s. Do we really want to be in front of the Legislature in 2019 arguing about bump-fire when we could be getting major improvements like $5 off LTC for retired firefighters and more privileges for LEO's. We'll be busy enough fighting for Sunday hunting, and rezoning for Houston area ranges and for more gravity knife rights....

[ScottDLS]

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

Serious question. Are bump stocks still for sale from the manufacturers? I really might like to get one...even if I have to give it up later.

[bblhd672]

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

Serious question. Are bump stocks still for sale from the manufacturers? I really might like to get one...even if I have to give it up later.

Apparently so.
https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/product/ar-15/

http://slidefire.com/product/ar-platform/

[BBYC]

The tooling is a sunk cost, so it makes sense to churn out and sell as many as possible before they're banned. Even if the ban flops, they can take advantage of surge pricing, like Uber.

[BBYC]

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking.

Not in the slightest.

Banning them is not taking them, unless people are required to turn them into the BATF and not allowed to destroy or disable them. Or export them.

I agree lawmaking by bureaucrats rather than the legislature is unconstitutional but SCOTUS seems to disagree with us. The CFR is filled with "laws" that weren't passed by Congress. That ship has sailed. I would be ecstatic if SCOTUS torpedoes that ship and rules all agency-made rules and regulations null and void for people who don't work for those agencies. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm also not holding my breath waiting for SCOTUS to rule NFA unconstitutional.

[Soccerdad1995]

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking.

Not in the slightest.

Banning them is not taking them, unless people are required to turn them into the BATF and not allowed to destroy or disable them. Or export them.

I agree lawmaking by bureaucrats rather than the legislature is unconstitutional but SCOTUS seems to disagree with us. The CFR is filled with "laws" that weren't passed by Congress. That ship has sailed. I would be ecstatic if SCOTUS torpedoes that ship and rules all agency-made rules and regulations null and void for people who don't work for those agencies. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm also not holding my breath waiting for SCOTUS to rule NFA unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure of your background, but are you sure about this? It seems to contradict the SCOTUS decision in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (first one that popped up) where the SCOTUS concluded that a "taking" had occurred because a coal company was restricted from mining coal in certain areas. In that case, the government was not literally "taking" the mineral rights from the coal company, but was merely restricting the company's ability to use and benefit from their property. If there is such a fine distinction between "taking" and not "taking", as you assert, then it seems like the government could do an end run around the constitution any time they wanted to seize property from the citizenry.

http://landuselaw.wustl.edu/Articles/Br ... Taking.htm

[crazy2medic]

If a standard AR stock can be bump fired does that make it a Bump fire stock? If not then how do you separate the two? A stock that is intended to be bump fired and a stock that can be bump fired?

[MechAg94]

If a standard AR stock can be bump fired does that make it a Bump fire stock? If not then how do you separate the two? A stock that is intended to be bump fired and a stock that can be bump fired?

I think the language is that the stock is designed to aid in or assist bump firing. Most AR stocks are not designed for that.

I could be wrong. You would have to read the ATF reg yourself.

[Soccerdad1995]

If a standard AR stock can be bump fired does that make it a Bump fire stock? If not then how do you separate the two? A stock that is intended to be bump fired and a stock that can be bump fired?

Here's the best description that I could find in the proposed rule. Unless I am missing something, it appears that they are proposing to confiscate "machine guns" that have the following characteristics. Later in the rule they specifically state that they know there are other devices which will accomplish the same bump firing technique, and that they are NOT proposing to ban those. So it appears that this definition is intended to be very narrow.

The devices used in Las Vegas and the other bump-stock-type devices currently available on the market all utilize essentially the same functional design. They are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing “rapid fire” operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed. They are configured with a sliding shoulder stock molded (or otherwise attached) to a pistol-grip/handle (or “chassis”) that includes an extension ledge (or “finger rest”) on which the shooter places the trigger finger while shooting the firearm. The devices also generally include a detachable rectangular receiver module (or “bearing interface”) that is placed in the receiver well of the device's pistol-grip/handle to assist in guiding and regulating the recoil of the firearm when fired.


These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.

[bigtek]

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

How is that different than the Akins Accelerator that OP mentioned? You know Bill Akins lost in court, right?

[spectre]

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

[Paladin]

These Proposed Rule comments are important!

If anyone else wants to leave a comment, there is still time until June 27, 2018.

GOA provided a Comment template

[Soccerdad1995]

Does anyone know the timeline on these types of rules? Apparently, we have until the end of June to submit comments, which will need to be read, considered, and possibly responded to. Then a final rule would need to be issued, and a timeline established for turning your newly defined "machine gun" in to the government, destroying it, or otherwise disposing of it.

Putting aside the possibility of a court ordered injunction until litigation has run it's course, what kind of time frame are we looking at before it becomes illegal to have a "bump stock" in your possession?

I realize this might not be an exact science. Just looking for a rough estimate.

[Soccerdad1995]

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.