search
top

Regulatory Path for Bump Stock Ban

A very informative article over at The Hill for how ATF is to proceed with this, from someone who understands administrative law. As I noted when all this started, ATF uses does this stuff by policy with determination letters. If this goes through, it will be a regulation, which is harder to change. There is a whole rule making process, which this article describes.

I’m told by people in the know that a bump stock ban was coming one way or another. It was just a question of whether or not it would be a narrowly tailored ban, or a broad ban that put all semi-automatic firearms at legal risk. I personally do not wish to see what a hostile administration could do with a law that works according to “rates of fire.” As I’ve learned debating people on this, “rapid fire” is whatever rate of fire the person arguing with you is uncomfortable with.

14 Responses to “Regulatory Path for Bump Stock Ban”

  1. Joe says:

    Hey Sebastian, this is a comment that everyone should send to the ATF for the comment period;

    It’s simple to define a “bump-stock”; “A butt- end of a firearm stock that utilizes recoil assisted torsion springs to increase the rate of fire in a semiautomatic firearm”.

    If the “part, parts, combination of parts/ device, devices, or combination of devices” definition of a “bump stock” is the bar to be set, than semiautomatic firearms will be banned entirely under the next Democrat Presidency/Dictatorship, especially one like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, and especially if they have a Democrat Controlled House and Senate, alongside flipping a SCOTUS seat or 2.

    Also, I hope everyone here at the blog is paying attention to the Democrat Party gearing for lawsuit warfare against State Firearm Preemption Laws. Deerfield, Illinois, and Boulder, Colorado are passing gun bans in violation of their State Preemption Laws, and Miami Florida, and Miami-Dade and Broward Counties Florida are considering passing and actively enforcing “Assault Weapons Bans”, in violation of Florida State Preemption Laws. They’re gonna go “judge-shopping” for Obama Judges to write State Preemption Laws out of existence.

    • National Observer says:

      “Deerfield, Illinois, and Boulder, Colorado are passing gun bans in violation of their State Preemption Laws”

      Does Illinois have effective preemption laws?

      I confess I didn’t follow the Highland Park, IL case at all. But since a quick read informs me (correctly?) that the matter was settled in favor of the municipality in federal district court, I would have the impression that the question of preemption of state law was never raised.

      Was it? Or was the case just fought very badly? That would seem important to the Deerfield case.

      • Brad says:

        Oh, it is so much worse. The Highland Park case got as high as the Supreme Court, which in typical fashion since 2010 refused to hear an appeal of the case.

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-highland-park-assault-weapons-ban-20151207-story.html

        This was ironic in a way, since the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been the ONLY Circuit to rule in our favor since the 2010 McDonald v Chicago SCOTUS ruling. That’s the only reason why Illinois now has must-issue concealed carry laws.

        But despite that favor, the 7th still was fine with the Highland Park confiscatory ban on so-called “assault weapons”.

        • Joe says:

          The Highland Park ban was grandfathered in by the Illinois State Firearms Preemption Laws, and that is why the Courts upheld them.

          However, effective from September of 2013 onward, no municipalities in Illinois are allowed to institute their own gun laws, because the Illinois State Firearms Preemption Laws prohibit them once they went into effect in September of 2013.

          Deerfield is actually in violation of the same Court Rulings they cite to defend their “Assault Weapons” Ban, as well as rulings from the State Supreme Court, striking down other municipalities whom have tried to ignore the 2013 Illinois State Firearms Preemption Laws.

        • Joe says:

          I also should’ve disclosed that there are 3 Vacancies on the 7th Circuit Court En Banc Panel, 2 of those 3 being Democrat Party Judges. Trump has 3 nominations pending, and from what I can tell, all 3 are pro-gun, with 2 of them ruling against Assault Weapons Bans and other anti-gun crap in Lower Court Rulings.

          We need to keep the Senate Majority after 2018 for the sake of Trump’s Court Appointments.

      • Joe says:

        See my reply to Brad below.

  2. Mike says:

    When it comes to bump stocks, the war is over; we lost. I’m worried about the precedent set by classifying something as a machine gun which clearly isn’t one. Best case scenario now is that the ATF backs off (or the court strikes it down as outside the law) and Congress goes back and passes a narrowly tailored bump stock ban. Preferably with national reciprocity attached.

  3. wizardpc says:

    “I’m told by people in the know that a bump stock ban was coming one way or another.”

    Honest question: How is that statement possible when Republicans control both houses of congress and the presidency?

    The last time the democrats had that we got obamacare, but when it’s the Republicans’ turn we get….gun control? What?

    • Sebastian says:

      The Republicans aren’t honestly all that pro-gun, and only hold on to Congress by a thin majority?

      • wizardpc says:

        Then what good is the NRA if they can’t convince them not to roll on us? And I ask that as a life member, certified nra pistol instructor, and nra recruiter

    • rd says:

      Look to the “Pro-Gun Republican” Governors of Vermont and Florida.
      They caved in like the spineless wimps they are.

      Do you trust a Flake or McCain? Collins or Moocowski?

      Pelosi will likely find forty gullible GOP House members to back stab us. Remember how they bravely repealed Obamacare? I don’t.

      You know that those independent Second Amendment Democrat Senators Manchin, Jones, and Heidkamp will blindly vote Schumer’s agenda.

      • Joe says:

        Amen to all of your points.
        Check this out too. Follow the $Money, and I guarantee you that this is the reason that the “Pro-Gun” GOP Governors of Florida and Vermont surrendered to the Gun-Banners, and why more will surrender in the future. Also, if the “Blue Wave” happens, the Democrats will likely have a 25-40 seat House of Representatives Majority, and possibly tie-up or take a 1 Seat Senate Majority. No need to worry for Pelosi in finding GOP Surrender-Monkeys.

        http://www.guns.com/2018/04/02/prominent-gop-donor-forms-gun-control-pac/

  4. rd says:

    This bump stock battle is lost.
    The key is to make sure it does not turn into a rout.
    Fallback to a strong position.

    Narrowly tailor the rule. Exempt from the rule everything a Bump Stock is NOT. Exempt the trigger mechanism entirely. Exempt the bolt carrier and recoil mechanisms entirely. For completeness, exempt the feed mechanisms and gas systems.

    Do not give the antigun rules lawyers any openings to expand the scope of the regulation. Close them off in the regulation itself.

  5. dwb says:

    The regulation however is defective and leaves the ATF open to lawsuits under the 5th amendment (takings).

    They could have granted amnesty registration period to avoid this – ATF has this authority and has used it in the past.

    Plus their argument that prior analysis legalizing bump stocks was somehow defective or incomplete is not persuasive. People relied on it, and ATF had years to fix it, they didn’t. Courts will take note of that.

top