United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump Administration Set to Announce Pointless, Legally Dubious Bump Stock Ban
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/29/ ... nistration-set-to-announce-poi
Published: Nov 29, 2018
Author: Joe Setyon
Post Date: 2018-11-30 06:57:57 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7477
Comments: 67
Bump stocks are modifications that can be attached to a rifle to increase the rate of fire, often at the expense of accuracy. Nine months after President Donald Trump endorsed a ban on the devices, the administration appears to be on the verge of banning them. CNN was the first to report the news yesterday evening, citing "officials familiar with the matter." An administration official confirmed to The New York Times that the rule would be unveiled "in the coming days to weeks." Under Trump's new regulation, a source tells CNN, bump stock owners would have 90 days to get rid of the devices on their own or turn them over to authorities. The issue first rose (temporarily) to the forefront of the national conversation after the October 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman used such devices as he killed 58 people. In February 2018, another mass shooting occurred, this one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Though the shooter did not use a bump stock, Trump announced in the aftermath of the tragedy that he would be banning the accessories, directing then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions "to propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns." In the following months, Trump continued signaling his intention to make bump stocks illegal. "So we're knocking out bump stocks," the president said in October. "And we are in the final couple of weeks." The administration probably doesn't have the legal authority to do this. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined 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." But a gun equipped with a bump stock is still able only to fire just one round per trigger pull. "Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round," Reason's Jacob Sullum explains. "The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly." As Reason's Christian Britschgi explained in March, this is probably why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has said multiple times that federal restrictions on machine guns do not cover bump stocks. The Obama administration affirmed the legality of bump stocks on three different occasions: once in 2010, again in 2012, and once more in 2013. As Sen. Diane Feinstein (D–Calif.) said in a February statement: The ATF "currently lacks authority under the law to ban bump stocks." In addition to being legally questionable, a bump stock ban probably wouldn't do very much. No mass shooters before or after Las Vegas have used bump stocks to carry out their massacres. Even in Las Vegas, the death toll wasn't necessarily higher because the shooter used one. Most gun enthusiasts have little need for bump stocks. So they're a relatively easy target for those who want more gun control, and a relatively easy sacrifice for gun rights advocates. Hence the reportedly pending ban. As Britschgi argued in October 2017: "Banning bump stocks is something that can be done without pissing too many people off, placating the crowd that after every shooting in America screams for somebody to do something."
Even the Obama administration recognized it didn't have the authority to ban bump stocks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
The administration probably doesn't have the legal authority to do this. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined 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." But a gun equipped with a bump stock is still able only to fire just one round per trigger pull. "Instead of squeezing the trigger, the shooter holds his trigger finger steady while pushing the barrel forward with his other hand, thereby firing a round," Reason's Jacob Sullum explains. "The recoil repositions the trigger, and continuing to exert forward pressure on the barrel makes the rifle fire repeatedly." As Reason's Christian Britschgi explained in March, this is probably why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has said multiple times that federal restrictions on machine guns do not cover bump stocks. The Obama administration affirmed the legality of bump stocks on three different occasions: once in 2010, again in 2012, and once more in 2013. I suppose looking at what the proposed rule actually says might be worth a try. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices [Excerpt - proposed rule of 29 March 2018] The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is whether a particular device causes a firearm to “shoot * * * automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition. ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect the best interpretation of the term “automatically” as used in the definition of “machinegun,” because those decisions focused on the lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger. As with the Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue cause the trigger to “bump” into the finger, so that the shooter need not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above, ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret “single function of the trigger,” but adopted a better legal and practical interpretation of “function” to encompass the shooter's activation of the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator and other bump-stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed. Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA and the NFA. See infra Part V. Commenters also argued that banning bump-stock-type devices will not significantly impact public safety. Again, the Department disagrees. The shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, highlighted the destructive capacity of firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices and the carnage they can inflict. The shooting also made many individuals aware that these devices exist—potentially including persons with criminal or terrorist intentions—and made their potential to threaten public safety obvious. The proposed regulation aims to ameliorate that threat. Some commenters objected to any regulation of bump-stock-type devices because, they argued, it will decrease innovation in the firearms accessories market and result in the loss of manufacturing and associated jobs. They suggested that the Federal Government should prevent the misuse of firearms through other means, such as by enforcing existing firearms laws, preventing mentally ill persons from acquiring weapons, and enacting more stringent criminal penalties for those who commit crimes with bump-stock-type devices. However, an important step in the enforcement of existing firearms laws is ensuring that ATF's regulations correctly interpret those laws. This proposed rulemaking will have an economic impact, see infra Part VI, but the impact will not be widespread, and the costs associated with this rule are easily exceeded by the benefits it will provide for public safety. The Department also disagrees that the proposed rulemaking will decrease innovation in the firearms accessories market. The fact that more than 65,000 industry professionals from the United States and foreign countries attend the annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, where many new and improved firearms accessories are introduced, is a clear market signal that there is strong demand for innovation and development of new shooting accessories irrespective of whether the bump-stock-type devices described in this rulemaking are prohibited. V. Proposed Rule The regulations in 27 CFR part 479 contain the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacturing, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and dealing in machineguns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms and weapons under the NFA. Currently, the regulatory definition of “machine gun” in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the NFA quoted in Part I, above. The definition includes the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically,” but those terms are not expressly defined in the statutory text. Those terms are best interpreted, however, to encompass firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices. As discussed above, bump-stock-type devices like the Akins Accelerator and other devices that operate to mimic automatic fire when added to semiautomatic rifles present the same risk to public safety that Congress has already deemed unacceptable by enacting and amending the GCA (18 U.S.C. 922(o)). Therefore, the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun.” Specifically, the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger.” The Department further proposes to amend these regulations by defining the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices). The interpretation of the phrase “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” reflects ATF's position since 2006, and it is the best interpretation of the statute. The Supreme Court in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), indicated that a machinegun under the NFA “fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger.” Id. at 602 n.1. This interpretation is also consistent with how the phrase “single function of the trigger” was understood at the time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. For instance, in a congressional hearing leading up to the NFA's enactment, the National Rifle Association's then-president testified that a gun “which is capable of firing more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger, is properly regarded, in my opinion, as a machine gun.” National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 40 (1934). Furthermore, and as noted above, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that ATF's interpretation of “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger” “is consonant with the statute and its legislative history.” Akins v. United States, 312 F. App'x 197, 200 (11th Cir.). No other court has held otherwise.[8] Interpreting the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger” also reflects the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. The word “automatically” is the adverbial form of “automatic,” meaning “[h]aving a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that performs a required act at a predetermined point in an operation[.]” Webster's New International Dictionary 187 (2d ed. 1934); see also 1 Oxford English Dictionary 574 (1933) (defining “Automatic” as “[s]elf-acting under conditions fixed for it, going of itself”). Relying on these definitions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accordingly interpreted the term “automatically” as used in the NFA as “delineat[ing] how the discharge of multiple rounds from a weapon occurs: as the result of a self-acting mechanism” “set in motion by a single function of the trigger and . . . accomplished without manual reloading.” United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 658 (7th Cir. 2009). So long as the firearm is capable of producing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger for some period of time, the firearm shoots “automatically” irrespective of why the firing sequence ultimately ends. Id. (“[T]he reason a weapon ceased firing is not a matter with which §?5845(b) is concerned.”). Olofson thus requires only that the weapon shoot multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger “as the result of a self-acting mechanism,” not that the self-acting mechanism produce the firing sequence without any additional action by the shooter. This definition accordingly requires that the self-acting or self-regulating mechanism must perform an act that is primarily responsible for causing the weapon to shoot more than one shot. Finally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on these interpretations, that the term “machinegun” includes a device that allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. When a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is “automatic” because the device harnesses the firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device's ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of machinegun and, therefore, come within the purview of the NFA. The GCA and its implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 478 incorporate the NFA's definition of machinegun. Accordingly, this proposed rule makes the same amendments to the definitions of “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machine gun” in 27 CFR 478.11.
There are a number of YouTube videos which illustrate how you can get the same effect using your belt loop. Now what? Ban belt loops? Pretty soon it will dawn on liberals that the only solution is to ban all semi-autos.
Ban the possession or use of any weapon which has been modified to permit it to operate in the manner of a fully automatic weapon. Ban the manufacture or sale of parts intended to be used to modify a legal firearm to operate in the manner of a fully automatic weapon. Or people can just ignore the (prospective) rule if and when it becomes a rule, and hope their trial and/or appellate court finds the ban to be unlawful or unconstitutional. Defendants can always argue that rules of the Obama administration are binding on the Trump administration and cannot be changed. Reason thinks that is an argument.
That's my point. There is no modification to the semi-automatic weapon itself. Hook your finger in your belt loop and you end up with a full-auto effect. Watch a video.
Your point is limited to the semantics of how the government may prohibit bump stocks or anything enabling fire more rapid than the original design. Let's try, "Any person, enabling or using a firearm to achieve or emulate the rapid fire mode of a fully automatic firearm, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 years." Definition: "Rapid fire shall be firing at a higher rate than the original design specifications." There is no constitutional right to keep and bear bump stocks. Government agencies are created by Congress and empowered to create regulations having the force of law. If the government chooses to regulate bump stocks, it can issue a regulation to do so. If Congress does not like the regulation, it can enact a statute to override it. A regulation can be challenged in court. It may be difficult to get a majority of any court to find a right to bump stocks, or anything enabling full-auto effect.
#11. To: nolu chan (#9)
(Edited)
Really? But it's certainly the right of law enforcement to own bump stocks?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest In the following months, Trump continued signaling his intention to make bump stocks illegal. "So we're knocking out bump stocks," the president said in October. "And we are in the final couple of weeks."
Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall under the statutory definition of “machinegun because, when attached, they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired round.” They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to many other ways in which a shooter Start Printed Page 13447can increase a firearm's rate of fire without using a bump-stock-type device.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
#7. To: misterwhite (#4)
There are a number of YouTube videos which illustrate how you can get the same effect using your belt loop. Now what? Ban belt loops?
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
Ban the manufacture or sale of parts intended to be used to modify a legal firearm to operate in the manner of a fully automatic weapon.
#9. To: misterwhite (#8)
That's my point. There is no modification to the semi-automatic weapon itself. Hook your finger in your belt loop and you end up with a full-auto effect. Watch a video.
Replies to Comment # 9.
#67. To: nolu chan (#9)
There is no constitutional right to keep and bear bump stocks.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]