-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
ATF/bumpfire
- Thread starter Zeake
- Start date
Thanks NRA
EDIT: It appears the document has been removed “The Office of the Federal Register withdrew this document after it went on public inspection due to technical errors.” I’ll be keeping my eye for a repost.
..ah **** . .
EDIT: It appears the document has been removed “The Office of the Federal Register withdrew this document after it went on public inspection due to technical errors.” I’ll be keeping my eye for a repost.
I am 100% expecting them to make these stocks illegal because it's a modification to the gun that allows a single manipulation of the gun (pulling it forward) to fire multiple rounds. It's no different in theory than that glove with the motor on it.
I don't expect binary triggers to get caught up in this though, because they absolutely fit the 1-action, one-shot rule they like to use.
What will be interesting, and would make it well worth losing bump-stocks, is if they were to allow you to register them, and potentially other currently non-transferable MGs. Like the last amnesty decades ago.
I don't expect binary triggers to get caught up in this though, because they absolutely fit the 1-action, one-shot rule they like to use.
What will be interesting, and would make it well worth losing bump-stocks, is if they were to allow you to register them, and potentially other currently non-transferable MGs. Like the last amnesty decades ago.
BUt the definition of an MG now is more than 1 shot per “single function of the trigger”. Not “single-direction application of pressure to fore-end of stock.”
The trigger gets pulled, and released, once per shot.
The stock is not the trigger.
The current law doesn’t say “per conscious and voluntary muscle-contraction caused pull of the trigger.”
I think Congress needs to rewrite the definition of automatic fire.
The trigger gets pulled, and released, once per shot.
The stock is not the trigger.
The current law doesn’t say “per conscious and voluntary muscle-contraction caused pull of the trigger.”
I think Congress needs to rewrite the definition of automatic fire.
Awesome. Let's have a bunch of nitwit lawyers define "automatic" fire. Most of those ******* haven't fired a shot.
It is getting kind of 'grey', but most of that seems to be in how the ATF defines what a 'machine gun' is. It's not like Congress ever really gave them a good definition to work with.
With bump fire stocks the trigger is no longer what fires the gun. In fact you can;t actually fire the gun with your finger and the trigger when you have it set up in bump fire mode. You could glue a pencil or a piece of dowel in that raised pad on the 'far' side of the trigger for all it matters, and never touch the trigger with your finger at all.
The bump-fire stock makes the sliding mechanism the 'trigger' now, and that obviously can fire multiple rounds simply by pulling it forward and holding it. That's where I think the ATF missed it originally... they kept looking at the actual trigger as the firing mechanism, when in reality it was now just another part of the action. No one talks about a 'fully automatic' or a 'semi automatic' hammer, and in a slide fire system the trigger is just as generic.
This whole thing is exactly what they keep running into in CA though. They pass a law to define an 'assault' rifle based on certain parts or features, and when folks find a way around that law by changing those parts they have to go back and redefine them again... and again... and again.
The right answer is to simply let law-abiding people own machine guns again. They are no more 'dangerous' in 99.999% of the situations they might be used in as a semi, and you don;t have to worry about this constant legal hair-splitting.
Are you saying that you think Congress needs to write a more restrictive definition of automatic fire?
