Bump Stocks Legal gain . . .till They are Not.

[ICU 812]

And There it is . . . . .Bump Stocks are Legal (For Now)

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban For Guns (forbes.com)


Misinformation as to what a bump stock actually is.
Bump Stocl Ruling - Yahoo Video Search Results


An explanation and demo of how a bump stock acrually functions
How does a bump stock work? | ABC News (youtube.com)

[txdot-guy]

A technical ruling that complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Let’s see if congress can come up with a rewrite of the description of a machine gun that doesn’t require the use of a trigger pull to define it. Under this ruling someone could design an automatic weapon that doesn’t have a manual trigger, used for mounting in a drone or vehicle perhaps, that uses an electric circuit to fire the weapon. Would that be a machine gun under the statute?

[ICU 812]

You peak the truth.

It is my belief that firearms that can operate at high rates of fire (whatever that is determined to be) be regulated as though they are true machineguns. To put an arbitrary figure on it, a rate of something around 250 to 300 rounds per minute.or about as fast as one can pull the trigger of a le4gal to own semi-automatic rifle now.

I would open the BATFE registry to those who own non-machineguns that fall into this newly regulated category and have themfill out the paperwork, undergo the heavy background check, pay the fees or tax and wait for it all to clear the system. All just as legal buyers of legally transferrable machineguns do already.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Under this ruling someone could design an automatic weapon that doesn’t have a manual trigger, used for mounting in a drone or vehicle perhaps, that uses an electric circuit to fire the weapon. Would that be a machine gun under the statute?

Well, that has already been done by the military, and yes indeed, that sort of firearm is considered to be a machinegun.

There is a technical term for the not-a-trigger that you envision. For the sake of clarity, it is called a sear. That is the name of mechanical part that does not allow the gun to fire. until it is released by a manual trigger, or by an electric solenoid etc.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Congress and the Left still can't define what an Assault Weapon is, besides scary looking. Bump stocks aren't even needed and frankly, do nothing more than fling random projectiles in an erratic pattern. A far better investment is a quality scope, as "scary" rifles are pretty darned accurate out to a couple hundred yards.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

A technical ruling that complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Let’s see if congress can come up with a rewrite of the description of a machine gun that doesn’t require the use of a trigger pull to define it. Under this ruling someone could design an automatic weapon that doesn’t have a manual trigger, used for mounting in a drone or vehicle perhaps, that uses an electric circuit to fire the weapon. Would that be a machine gun under the statute?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Good catch. Technically, I'm pretty sure that so long as the sear was manufactured before 1985, it is legal. No idea how one could prove the sear's born on date though. Regardless, accuracy is not improved with a legal sear.

Let us not lose sight that machine guns are legal to own, albeit expenseive to acquire and still must conform to the 1985 rule. However, the BATF is s-l-o-w AF in issuing a $200 "Tax Stamp" for them.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Well, that has already been done by the military, and yes indeed, that sort of firearm is considered to be a machinegun.

There is a technical term for the not-a-trigger that you envision. For the sake of clarity, it is called a sear. That is the name of mechanical part that does not allow the gun to fire. until it is released by a manual trigger, or by an electric solenoid etc.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

A technical ruling that complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law...

exactly.

And all of the supreme court decisions are the same.

As much as folks state that some of the Supremes' decision are "political" decisions, this one is clear. Machine guns are defined by law.

And, Bump stock as a machine gun modification was defined by an govt agency ruling that changed its definition, and was not law. This is the issue, and the only issue.

This simply throws the definition back to the legislative branch where laws are actually made.

Key to this issue, which encompasses most issues that end up with the Supreme 9 is that laws must be passed by the legislative branch. The Supremes' only job is to apply existing law to whatever issue. They do not modify, they are not wishful, etc.

One of the key things that the Supremes do is to specifically call out excising law, usually badly written, so that the legislative process can consider a rewrite. Specifically note that the Supremes can not rewrite anything.

[TulsaLocksmith]

Everyone always wants to blame the problems on the guns, but let's face it the AR-15 platform has been around for a very long time as have other similar weapons it is only recently that things have changed.
What may have caused the changes the attitude changes?

Go back and watch some of the original A-Team episodes and how many rounds were fired and how many cars flipped or were blown up, difference is you didn't see anyone die because the Sensors would not allow that to be shown on TV. But these days it is all about how many rounds you can see fired on the TV shows and the massive gun battles.

Anyone ever consider all these 1st person shooter games that have been teaching people for the last 25+ years it's OK to go on a shooting spree and if you don't do it right, simply hit the reset button and start over.
I could rant on all sorts of other things but the bump stock is crap. If you want to spray and pray simply hold the weapon down at waste level and hook your thumb through your beltloop and let the weapon bounce it will have a similar results. The court got it right, one pull of the trigger releases 1 round.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Good catch. Technically, I'm pretty sure that so long as the sear was manufactured before 1985, it is legal. No idea how one could prove the sear's born on date though. Regardless, accuracy is not improved with a legal sear.

Let us not lose sight that machine guns are legal to own, albeit expenseive to acquire and still must conform to the 1985 rule. However, the BATF is s-l-o-w AF in issuing a $200 "Tax Stamp" for them.

Manufactured before 1985 and REGISTERED with BATFE before 1985. That is how they know it is legal.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1985 controls this issue.

An auto sear is regulated in the same way as an entire machinegun, forms to fill out, deep background check, Fees and tax stamp* all of it. The firearm and everything about you become a matter of record with the government. A fully automatic firearm or the parts to make it so fit within the statutory definition of what constitutes a machinegun.

The BATFE applied the same regulations to Bump Stocks and the Supreme Court found that Bump Stocks do not fall within the statute's definition og a machinegun.

I do not understand why this is so hard for folks to grasp. The fundamental issue is regulatory overreach.


There are cases fermenting and brewing in the court system dealing with regulatory overreach in OSHA, EPA and other agencies that are no different from the Bump Stock thing.

In ech case, the agencies have exceeded what they are allowed to do by law. However commendable or benaficial the struck-down regulations are, they must be addressed through new federal legislation by both houses of Congress. . . and then signed in to law by whoever is President.

[Diligaf]

That was the executive order put in place by trump, right? Just making sure we know who was responsible for the infringement on the sacred 2nd amendment.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Diligaf

That was the executive order put in place by trump, right? Just making sure we know who was responsible for the infringement on the sacred 2nd amendment.

Bump Stocks are not an infringement of the Second Amendment. It's an after market accessory and a crappy one at that. Since it isn't a permanent modification the firearm isn't considered to be fully automatic.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Diligaf

That was the executive order put in place by trump, right?...

I don't think so, unless you have the EO number to share with us. My recollection was that he advocated for it heavily, but also knew that Congress should have updated the law.


I thought it was the ATF that had decided they met the letter of a law from the 1930's. Regardless, it's still a stupid accessory that could be used by deranged lunatics, but then just about anything could be in that category.



Better question may be whether you plan to vote for Trump, since he stood up to the NRA and those deranged, legal, gun owners?

[ICU 812]

I do ot see that deterimining who did what or when is all that important. PR`IOR TO THE lAS vEGAS MASSICER, MOST FOLKS IN THE GUNS=R-FUM community (myself included) thought bump Stocks were an impractical novelty. Ammunition can be costly at nearly a dollar a shot (more or less).

After theat mass shooting, ther ws a loud public outcry qagainst Bump Stocks. President Trump was responsive to that. REgardless of one's emotional view on guns, it is obvious that the way a Bump Stock works is not congruent with the legal definition of what constitutes a machinegun.

In the end, "the system" worked as designed and the high court has ruled. Now it is up to the Republicans and Democrats in congress to figure out what the right thing to do is and sct on that with new legislation.

[ICU 812]

Watch out for more rulings from SCOTUS on regulatory overarch for OSHAS and EPA among other agencies. Also watch for rulings on forearm pistol braces and forced reset triggers.

I believe that we need a legal definition of what constitutes a machinegun that is based on rate of fire rather than only loking at the physical mechanism.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

exactly.

And all of the supreme court decisions are the same.

As much as folks state that some of the Supremes' decision are "political" decisions, this one is clear. Machine guns are defined by law.

And, Bump stock as a machine gun modification was defined by an govt agency ruling that changed its definition, and was not law. This is the issue, and the only issue.

This simply throws the definition back to the legislative branch where laws are actually made.

Key to this issue, which encompasses most issues that end up with the Supreme 9 is that laws must be passed by the legislative branch. The Supremes' only job is to apply existing law to whatever issue. They do not modify, they are not wishful, etc.

One of the key things that the Supremes do is to specifically call out excising law, usually badly written, so that the legislative process can consider a rewrite. Specifically note that the Supremes can not rewrite anything.

I've noticed a couple 9-0 Supreme Court decisions released in the last couple weeks. The sad part is the press never really talks about 9-0 decisions or explains the technical issues involved that made it a 9-0 decision.