Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu May 23, 2019 7:08 am


Rules Brads Guns Rainier Arms McCallen Killer Innovations Fessleman Firearms
WGO Chat Room Rehv Arms Vantage Reloading
Gear Fortis WCA 2A Ind. Pintos WAC
Calendar




Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Is a stock a firearm? 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Seattle
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016
Posts: 589
Real Name: Eric
Soo we have the bump stock ban fast approaching. It's been alleged by the ATF that a firearm fitted with a "bump stock" is a "machine gun".

But, the ask is to turn in the bump stocks, but not the gun itself. This seems very odd to me. I'm familiar with the term "constructive intent", but if someone owned a bump stock, but not a firearm suitable for that, how is that constructive intent? What if you modified the bump stock such that it no longer slid (could put a rubber stopper in the buffer)?

What has actually been made illegal with the ATF ruling? Can accessories even be banned by the ATF?


Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:31 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma, WA
Joined: Sun Sep 7, 2014
Posts: 5816
PinSniper wrote:
Soo we have the bump stock ban fast approaching. It's been alleged by the ATF that a firearm fitted with a "bump stock" is a "machine gun".

But, the ask is to turn in the bump stocks, but not the gun itself. This seems very odd to me. I'm familiar with the term "constructive intent", but if someone owned a bump stock, but not a firearm suitable for that, how is that constructive intent? What if you modified the bump stock such that it no longer slid (could put a rubber stopper in the buffer)?

What has actually been made illegal with the ATF ruling? Can accessories even be banned by the ATF?


It's an interesting question, and while unconstitutional the answer is yes.

By way of analogy, if you owned only a short barrel to a shotgun, or the short barrel to a rifle, but nothing legal to put it on, I'd venture you're in dangerous territory legally. If you owned a fully auto sear, and no legal reason to, you'd probably be in dangerous territory. These aren't serialized items necessarily...

_________________
I defend the 2A. US Army Combat Veteran and Paratrooper: OIF Veteran. BSM and MSM recipient. NRA Lifetime. Entertainment purposes only. I'm a lawyer, but have not offered you legal advice.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:38 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 3986
Those aren't very good analogies the way you presented them

A short barrel could be used in a pistol, or whatever the shockwave is. If you have a complete AR15 lower with a stock that has no upper to mate with and also have a short barrel you could be afoul of the law. The barrel, in and of itself, isn't a problem though

The sear IS considered a MG in and of itself, and has been ruled that before. It has no other use than to turn a semi auto into full auto

The bump fire stock also will not have a legal use. It's only purpose is to turn an AR15 into a rapid fire baby killing machine even though it's not a thing that goes up

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Lacey
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019
Posts: 37
Real Name: Arnold Sr
The government can ban anything that they do not like. It's a only a matter of time before guns are completely banned and confiscated.

_________________
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Abraham Lincoln 8 Dec 1840


Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:31 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Hoodsport/Shelton
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 2747
Real Name: Don
Brokenvet wrote:
The government can ban anything that they do not like. It's a only a matter of time before guns are completely banned and confiscated.



I think you mean "And are attempted to be confiscated" :thumbsup2:

_________________
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living".

-- Travis A Kisner


Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:22 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Auburn, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 11864
Real Name: Rick
99% of all AR15 owners here own a full auto BCG. :wagwoot:

_________________
Beyond pissed :angryfire:

I do have good days but Washington State is becoming a shithole faster than I can loose money at a casino.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:34 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Snohomish, WA
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012
Posts: 1005
Real Name: Bo
If I install a bump stock on a muzzle loader, is it still a bump stock

_________________
"I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life." ~ Four Leaf Tayback


Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:02 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5829
Real Name: Curtis
ATF is on shaky ground here...anyone whose first language is English can read the definition of "machine gun" and understand that a bump stock is not one, but ATF says that it is. Their own statement on the change in interpretation is contradictory. As soon as the ban takes effect, it'll be challenged in court, and I predict the ATF will get their peepee slapped. Not only can they not change the definition without an act of Congress, but they also can't force people to give up private property without due process or compensation. At the end of this, they will be embarrassed for this stupid, politically-motivated stunt.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Seattle
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016
Posts: 589
Real Name: Eric
RocketScott wrote:
The bump fire stock also will not have a legal use. It's only purpose is to turn an AR15 into a rapid fire baby killing machine even though it's not a thing that goes up


I could use a bump fire stock as a stock. Or I could use it as a bookshelf end piece.

Are they saying a bump stock IS a machine gun in the same way a drop in auto sear is a machine gun?

But surely confiscation is not necessary, a simple modification to a bump stock would turn it ONLY into a stock. And modification does change the nature of the device regardless of the original manufacturers intent. Eg. physically modifying a pistol brace to be more comfortable to shoulder fire may alter it into a stock.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:05 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Auburn, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011
Posts: 11864
Real Name: Rick
Just think of all the anti gunners walking around unknowingly carrying full auto belt loops on their jeans. :wink05:

_________________
Beyond pissed :angryfire:

I do have good days but Washington State is becoming a shithole faster than I can loose money at a casino.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Location: Snohomish Co
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018
Posts: 108
So is anyone going to make a bunch out of wood for the buyback?


Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:40 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Auburn West Hill
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011
Posts: 9868
Real Name: Casey
Guns4Liberty wrote:
ATF is on shaky ground here...anyone whose first language is English can read the definition of "machine gun" and understand that a bump stock is not one, but ATF says that it is. Their own statement on the change in interpretation is contradictory. As soon as the ban takes effect, it'll be challenged in court, and I predict the ATF will get their peepee slapped. Not only can they not change the definition without an act of Congress, but they also can't force people to give up private property without due process or compensation. At the end of this, they will be embarrassed for this stupid, politically-motivated stunt.



they also said once that a shoe string is a machine gun....just saying

_________________
Actor portrayal, Action figures sold separately, You must be at least this tall to ride, Individual results may vary, Sales tax not included, All models are over 18 years of age, upon approval of credit, Quantities are limited while supplies last, Some restrictions apply, Not available with other offers, At participating locations only, Void where prohibited, Above terms subject to change without notice, Patent pending.


See my blog: http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/


Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:46 pm
Profile WWW
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Tacoma
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015
Posts: 3986
PinSniper wrote:

I could use a bump fire stock as a stock. Or I could use it as a bookshelf end piece.

Are they saying a bump stock IS a machine gun in the same way a drop in auto sear is a machine gun?

But surely confiscation is not necessary, a simple modification to a bump stock would turn it ONLY into a stock. And modification does change the nature of the device regardless of the original manufacturers intent. Eg. physically modifying a pistol brace to be more comfortable to shoulder fire may alter it into a stock.


I actually don’t know exactly what they are saying, haven’t read through the determination

ATF rules don’t make sense sometimes and on this one they made a ruling and then reversed it completely so it’s more than a bit perplexing

Arguing that you have a bump stock or DIAS for a bookend would be pretty foolish. Nice try but that is a reach. If you have no firearms that will work with said bookend you might have a case

Modifying a bump stock might work but it can’t be ‘easily’ converted back. Think about pinning and welding a muzzle device onto a short barrel to get to 16”. Simply threading on an extension won’t work. It has to be ~permanent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
You may be right, I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for


Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:34 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: NW Wa state
Joined: Tue Apr 7, 2015
Posts: 415
Guns4Liberty wrote:
ATF is on shaky ground here...anyone whose first language is English can read the definition of "machine gun" and understand that a bump stock is not one, but ATF says that it is. Their own statement on the change in interpretation is contradictory. As soon as the ban takes effect, it'll be challenged in court, and I predict the ATF will get their peepee slapped. Not only can they not change the definition without an act of Congress, but they also can't force people to give up private property without due process or compensation. At the end of this, they will be embarrassed for this stupid, politically-motivated stunt.


While I agree with your point of what "should" be, I think the reality is a bit darker.

Case in point - The ATF defines a suppressor as a firearm. We all know it's not a firearm, any more than an automotive muffler is a car, but the ATF arbitrarily defined suppressors that way specifically so they could have jurisdiction over them, and has gotten away with it for many years. I think they can absolutely get away with doing the same thing to bumpstocks or anything else if they want to, and there won't be a thing we can do about legally.

ATF rulings often don't make sense, and apparently don't have to in the eyes of the government, but their rulings are upheld as law by people with guns. I don't like it any more than you do.


Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:12 pm
Profile
Online
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Edmonds
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014
Posts: 5829
Real Name: Curtis
Yondering wrote:
Guns4Liberty wrote:
ATF is on shaky ground here...anyone whose first language is English can read the definition of "machine gun" and understand that a bump stock is not one, but ATF says that it is. Their own statement on the change in interpretation is contradictory. As soon as the ban takes effect, it'll be challenged in court, and I predict the ATF will get their peepee slapped. Not only can they not change the definition without an act of Congress, but they also can't force people to give up private property without due process or compensation. At the end of this, they will be embarrassed for this stupid, politically-motivated stunt.


While I agree with your point of what "should" be, I think the reality is a bit darker.

Case in point - The ATF defines a suppressor as a firearm. We all know it's not a firearm, any more than an automotive muffler is a car, but the ATF arbitrarily defined suppressors that way specifically so they could have jurisdiction over them, and has gotten away with it for many years. I think they can absolutely get away with doing the same thing to bumpstocks or anything else if they want to, and there won't be a thing we can do about legally.

Actually, it was Congress that defined a silencer as a firearm, because it was Congress that wrote and passed the NFA (and the GCA). ATF simply enforces the laws as written, and issues opinions/interpretations when something isn't expressly clear. In the case of bump stocks, they absolutely do not meet Congress' definition of 'machine gun' as written - this is plain as day to anyone who understands how a bump stock works. I contend that ATF knows this reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns is a complete stretch, but if/when it is struck down they can say "well, we tried". I mean, look at ATF's statement - it contradicts itself:

Quote:
This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.


So, it's a single pull, but the trigger is reset? It can't be both.


Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:21 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Guns4Liberty, laneends, TwizDD and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rent Me Pintos NRA SAF CCKRBA
Aldersons e-arms.com


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.639s | 16 Queries | GZIP : On ]