/k/ - Weapons

>>545572

Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices. A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives Bureau on 12/26/2017

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/12/26/2017-27898/application-of-the-definition-of-machinegun-to-bump-fire-stocks-and-other-similar-devices

——————-

>The NFA defines “machinegun” as any weapon which: “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

———–

AGENCY:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

ACTION:

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Justice anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would interpret the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to clarify whether certain devices, commonly known as “bump fire” stocks, fall within that definition. Before doing so, the Department and ATF need to gather information and comments from the public and industry regarding the nature and scope of the market for these devices.

DATES:

Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2018.

>>545574

Questions to pose, and things to mention in your submision.

-What will happen to all the current owners of "Bump Fire" stocks.

- Does the ATF propose to confiscate bump fire stocks and how will they do this?

-How will the ATF regulate people connecting a grip to a collapsible stock with a simple peice of metal and screws from Home Depot? What about 3D printed stocks?

- Does the ATF propose to regulate a person using thier finger and sholder to simulate "bump fire."

- If yes, at what rate of pulling the trigger is "too fast," and does that rate of fire of pulling the trigger turn the firearm into a "machine gun."

- If pulling the trigger fast, makes the firearm a machine gun, is it from that point forward a machine gun under ____ in keeping with past ATF rulings?

- If a firearm that has been bump fired with a persons finger and shoulder only, without modification to a firearm from the factory in any way, is now a machine gun from that point forward, how will the ATF determine if that firearms has been bump fired in the past and therefor a machine gun?

- If a collapible stock becomes loose or loses the screw that holds the stock in place making the stock able to slide back and forth freely, and therefore able to be bump fired more easily, does that make that firearm a machine gun?

- If yes, and a person repairs the stock adding the scew back to hold the stock in place, is that firearm converted back into just a "firearm" under

__.

>>545575

How do weapon bans work with the rule "lex retro non agitat"? Is there even a rule preventing law from being retoractive in America?

>>545580

yes, no ex-post facto laws, but thats only if you sue them, which costs money, and you have to prove damages.

Naw man I just asked them why criminals could buy a pair of shoes but now law-abiding, tax-paying citizens would suddenly be criminals.

Also, regulating bump-stocks does violate the ADA, since that's why they were invented in the first place – for shooters with no hands.

>>545585

Also their "print comment" function is, so far as I can tell, broken.

I printed my comment, but only got a .PDF of every page of their proposal, with each page having my ticket # posted in a giant dialog box in the middle.

>>545585

>Also, regulating bump-stocks does violate the ADA, since that's why they were invented in the first place – for shooters with no hands.

wut?

>>545589

>wut?

those wacky Gatling triggers have been used for guys without fingers.

>>545606

ah nice