Potential ATF bump stock ban opens a can of worms

[Doc Safari]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...to-other-bans/

Former ATF Gun Tech Chief Rick Vasquez warns that the ATF’s current push to ban bump stocks will open the door to other bans

A legislative push to ban bump stocks lost steam within a month of the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas attack. The public simply did not rally behind the gun control campaign. This left the ruling class no option but to take the regulatory route and seek bump stock gun control via ATF edict.

On December 22, 2017, Breitbart News reported that the ATF was formulating a redefinition of “machineguns” so that the term would cover “machineguns” and non-machineguns as well. Gun controllers have to do this because a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a “machinegun.”

The ATF’s former gun tech chief is warning that efforts to redefine “machineguns,” for the the purposes of banning bump stocks, will only lead to more bans. He told the Military News Channel, “So ATF’s been directed to write a regulation with the strength of a law.” He said the advance notice copy of the new rule makes clear that the ATF’s new regulation will ban “any device that automatically resets a firearm and enhances the rate of fire.” He added, “That is extremely broad.”

Vasquez observed, “They are trying to target binary triggers, [bump stock] devices, and other devices, but that is such broad language, can I take that to a Gatling gun? …So now you start stretching this [new] definition, and who is going to decide what the [standard] rate of fire is?” In other words, Vasquez is saying a this new ban simply opens the door to “stretching” the language to cover other devices, as the ruling class sees fit.

DUPCc_xX0AADN9h.jpg

Vasquez also stressed that there will be no “grandfather clause” with a new ATF bump stock ban. This means individuals who refuse to turn over a bump stocks will immediately become a “prohibited person.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...j-bump-stocks/

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a change whereby the definition of “machinegun” would be broadened to include bump stocks.
This change would subsequently bring bump stocks under the purview of the same National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act of 1968 regulations that currently govern machinegun sales and possession.

The DOJ has released a draft of the announcement of the proposed definition expansion. It is similar to numerous Democrat gun control proposals that followed the Las Vegas attack inasmuch the new definition would ban numerous firearm accessories in addition to bump stocks. The title of letter conveying the DOJ’s announcement says it all: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.

If the DOJ succeeds in redefining “machinegun,” it portends a scenario in which individuals who own bump stocks will be required to undergo background checks and a registration process to legally retrain the devices. And if the guidelines for “machinegun” ownership hold true, owners of bump stocks would also have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and pay a $200 tax to the federal government.

My take: The ATF succeeded in redefining Streetsweeper shotguns as destructive devices even though they were in common use at the time. Bump stocks are history.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I think I need a "FTATF" patch for my riding jacket.

[Firefly]

FORMER ATF.

Call me when CURRENT ATF has something to say

I dont want Bumpstocks banned but then again, I wouldnt buy one.

The Street Sweeper was Clinton Crap. They actually suck super hardcore.

The USAS-12 however was cool and didnt deserve to be banned. Banning Streetsweepers never hurt my feelings

[Doc Safari]

FORMER ATF.

Call me when CURRENT ATF has something to say

I dont want Bumpstocks banned but then again, I wouldnt buy one.

The Street Sweeper was Clinton Crap. They actually suck super hardcore.

The USAS-12 however was cool and didnt deserve to be banned. Banning Streetsweepers never hurt my feelings

You think they've changed substantially? I don't.

They still represent an anti-Second Amendment agency that rules by fiat.

I know they haven't won every push, but knowing what we know about their past behavior I don't see any reason to think they won't ban bump stocks if they wish.

[Dist. Expert 26]

You think they've changed substantially? I don't.

They still represent an anti-Second Amendment agency that rules by fiat.

I know they haven't won every push, but knowing what we know about their past behavior I don't see any reason to think they won't ban bump stocks if they wish.

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

[Firefly]

You think they've changed substantially? I don't.

They still represent an anti-Second Amendment agency that rules by fiat.

I know they haven't won every push, but knowing what we know about their past behavior I don't see any reason to think they won't ban bump stocks if they wish.

All I see is something in the vein as retired generals and colonels on Fox News saying how we are all gonna die. Yawn

When SecDef Mattis says "Hey man, get ready for some Red Dawn mess" then my ears may yet prick.

Half of people think the ATF are crusaders disarming terrorists (not totally), the other half think they are Frankfurt School Alum who are plotting to grab all the guns (not totally)....

When in reality most are out doing cigarette and liquor inventories and shagging gun store paperwork. They are FAR from the Waffen SS. They aren't jackbooted master race with Blood Daggers marching in perfect unison singing Victoria at the top of their lungs. Go watch a FLETC class. I promise you, you will say "THIS is the boogeyman?!"

I think their head shed is a bunch bureaucrats justifying their position and less people bitch about guns than smokes and booze (although cigarettes ARE more expensive thanks to the ATF).

Again, I dont want anything banned but I doubt you will see much past bump stocks. Braces are safe because amputees gotta shoot too and a Federal AWB just wont happen at this juncture. More efficacy at the State level which, hey, is actually MORE Constitutional (even if I disagree with the bans) than a Federal ban. States Rights and all.

BUT the ATF hasn't acted upon bumpfire yet. I remember the Saiga 12 scare and wanting to make it a DD and folks were screeching about their moley labias and yet, Saiga 12s are still to be had. Same with 855. Dudes were painting bullet meplats green and selling them for a dollar a round. Nothing happened.

Y'all can get your panties in a twist but not The Kid.

[RVTMaverick]

Well said and Thank You!

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

[Doc Safari]

I remember the Saiga 12 scare and wanting to make it a DD and folks were screeching about their moley labias and yet, Saiga 12s are still to be had. Same with 855. Dudes were painting bullet meplats green and selling them for a dollar a round. Nothing happened.

.

This is why I said they haven't won every push. The outcry against the ban on M855 may very well have turned the tide. Hence...this...thread...might...inspire...similar...pushback.

ARE YA WITH ME, SO FAR?

I know bump stocks are less than "meh" to most people familiar with firearms. Still, don't give any ground. None. Not one inch.

[Dist. Expert 26]

This is why I said they haven't won every push. The outcry against the ban on M855 may very well have turned the tide. Hence...this...thread...might...inspire...similar...pushback.

ARE YA WITH ME, SO FAR?

I know bump stocks are less than "meh" to most people familiar with firearms. Still, don't give any ground. None. Not one inch.

Considering half the members here, not to mention the NRA, were rushing to give them up in the days following Vegas I wouldn't hold your breath.

[kerplode]

My biggest issue is the fact that ATF "regulations" fly in the face of our legislative process. Congress is supposed to create law and the executive branch, under which the ATF falls as a law enforcement agency, is only supposed to enforce said laws.

If Congress can't pass a ban, no such ban need exist.

Chevron v. NDRC