Tag Archives: Bump-Stock-Type Devices

Poll: Do you care about bump-fire?

Recently, I’ve put a fair amount of my time into tracking bump-fire bans, new rulemaking and legislation alike. I’ve noticed thatrelatively few people seem to be speaking about the subject, and the majority of those who bring it up at all indicate that bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks, etc.) aren’t worth bothering with.

Obviously, I disagree with that assessment.

Web site traffic analysis also indicates that bump-fire is a low-interst topic.

What do you think? Am I wasting my time and yours? This a two-parter; two separate, but related, polls.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATE] Bumbling Machinations on Bump Stocks?

[See ATF update below]

I’ve been chasing bump-fire stock commenting on regulations.gov this morning, because it matters, trying to sort out the issues with commenting. What I’ve found so far:

My layman’s understanding is that new rules (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NPRM) have to be announced in the Federal Register, giving people a chance to voice their views on them, before the rules can be implemented. Sure, they can ignore us, but they have to let us yammer.

The only Federal Register announcement for “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” is “A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 03/29/2018.” That is Docket No. 2017R-22, which on federalregister.gov shows 35,709 public comments. Clicking the link to those comments takes you to the comments for December 2017’s proposed rule. (Ditto for the GPO PDF of the Federal Register.)

Regulations.gov is the web site where we — supposedly — get to voice those views.

Regulations.gov shows two dockets, neither of which is “Docket No. 2017R-22”.

ATF-2018-0001:
“Comments Not Accepted”
The comment I made on that, 1k2-92ad-9enm, 3/29/2018, shows “This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.”

A search for comments on ATF-2018-0001 shows “35,709 results”. But the result displayed are the comments from the December 2017 NPRM, “Comment Period Closed, Jan 25, 2018 11:59 PM ET”.

Docket No. ATF-2018-0002:
This docket shows different comment counts depending on the page you look at.

  • ATF-2018-0002
    Commenting allowed, currently shows “3,673 Comments Received”.
  • ATF-2018-0002-0001
    Commenting allowed, currently shows “1,864 Comments Received”.

But no comments on ATF-2018-002 can be found: “0 results”.

My comment on this docket, 1k2-92b5-589w, 3/30/2018, also shows “This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.”

Please note: While ATF-2018-0001 was published on 3/29/2018 and could be considered the NPRM referred to in the Federal Register, ATF-2018-002 was not published until 3/30/2018, after comment were closed on the 3/29 docket.

SUMMARY: The “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” is being “tracked” under three different docket numbers. The Federal Register — where rules apparently must be legally published — shows only Docket No. 2017R-22, which you might recall is also the docket number for the December 2017 NPRM.

But regulations.gov shows two dockets, neither published in the Federal Register, with different comment counts. And neither of my comments will display for any docket number.

It’s hard to tell with the ATF, but this might be bureaucratic incompetence rather than deliberate malice. Possibly some idiot did a copy/paste from the 2017 NPRM, and got the old docket number. When they tried to enter a new docket number to keep comments separated, they managed to enter two, screwing up the whole NPRM.

Or it might be deliberate machinations, with bureaucratic bumbling as plausible deniability.

Update, 4/2/2018, 11:55 AM EDT: I have received a response from the ATF. As you can see, it fails to explain why commenting closed on one docket, or why there are two other separate (and not listed in the Federal Register) dockets. Comments are still separated across dockets in counts, yet are not visible.

From: Katrina.A.Moore@usdoj.gov
Subject: FW: Comments Closed on Bump-Fire Rule

This is in response to your email to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In your email, which you inquired why the commenting was closed on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” after one day.

As you may know, ATF is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as well as other Federal firearms laws. A significant part of the GCA concerns the licensing and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of firearms.

The direct link to comment on the subject notice is https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001

If you have any further comments or concerns, they may be directed to the Office of Regulatory Affairs (202) 648-7070.

In addition, there may be State laws that pertain to this proposed activity. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General (www.naag.org) for information on any such requirements. You may also find information in ATF publication 5300.5: State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. Should you have additional questions, please contact your local ATF office. A listing of ATF office phone numbers can be found here.

Regards,

K Moore | Senior Industry Operations Investigator
U.S. Department of Justice | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Firearms Industry Programs Branch
99 New York Avenue NE, Mail Stop 6.N-518
Washington, DC 20226

Update 2, 4/2/2018, 2:55PM EDT:
The inconsistent comment counts are the same, but 431 comments can now be seen. Visible comments include some submitted today. However, neither of my comments submitted last week can be found anywhere. Since my comments have vanished, I have submitted a third attempt to voice my opinion: 1k2-92d6-aj9o, 4/2/2018:

Comment Tracking Number Match
This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms

Some people wonder why I worry about the Trump administration’s move to ban bump-fire stocks (“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” BSTD). After all, they aren’t really useful for anything practical. They’re inaccurate, unstable. Why we’d be…

“ft”: “Bottom line, our country would be better off without Bump stocks or the really stupid trigger cranks.”

“Better off.”

If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)

The NC sheriff candidate, who was criticized for his “cold, dead hands” joke remark (why the assumption that he was joking?), stated earlier in that meeting that he wants to ban anything that allows any firearm to “fire in rapid succession.” That’s what this proposed rule allows, too.

“I think we need to ban the sale of any mechanism that will allow a firearm to fire in rapid succession. And the reason why that’s the terminology that we need to use in our statutes is somebody out there is going to be able to develop some mechanism of some kind that is going to be able to fire in rapid succession.” (emphasis added-cb)
— R. Daryl Fisher, March 7, 2018

Anyone know why paper cartridges for muzzleloaders were invented? Pouring powder, and patching and ramming a ball are slow. Using a cartridge increased “rate of fire.”

Remember the British — Revolutionary War period!Ferguson rifle? As a self-priming breechloader, it greatly increased… rate of fire.

Minié ball? Easy to load; increased rate of fire.

In short, this NPRM, and the intent of the gun controllers, is a camouflaged ban on semiautomatic firearms. Doubt it? Read the NPRM language, and ask yourself how “President Hillary Clinton” would read and apply the rule.

Still doubt that “rate of fire” criteria is what the victim disarmers have in mind?

Some useful criteria
In the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock used guns that had a rate of fire of 9 rounds per second and magazines holding 60-100 rounds each. With these weapons, Paddock was able to kill dozens and wound hundreds in minutes. If the devastation Paddock caused with his weapons is equivalent to what he could have caused with M16s or M4s, then the weapons he used should be banned from civilian use. This is why I believe using rate of fire and magazine capacity are the most useful criteria for identifying what weapons are or are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (emphasis added-cb)

Well, any magazine with a capacity greater than one is going to increase “rate of fire” over a single-shot. Or a musket.

“Rate of fire” is the new tactic from the gun grabber playbook to ban semiautomatic firearms. After all, what duck hunter needs anything but a double-barrel (apparently muzzleloaded) shiotgun> What deer hunter needs more than Granpa’s old bolt-action musket?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Updated] Bump-fire Rule: “Comments Not Accepted”

ADDED 2: jim notes in comments that the proposed rule can now be found HERE.

That’s nice. Except…

Scroll down. New docket number. Comment count is zero.

Related Dockets: None
Related RINs: None
Related Documents: None

That means this is not tied to the previous notice with existing comments, and those hundreds of comments that were made before are GONE.

Inquiries to the ATF, DOJ, Federal Register, and various congresscritters have gone unanswered. An automated response from the ATF reads, “It is the goal of FIPB to respond to requests from firearms industry members and the general public within 120 days of receipt.”

Nice trick. If comments aren’t going your way, kill the proposal, reissue it without telling anyone, and do over until you get the results you want to justify violating human/civil rights.

I have two comment receipts now, so I can check if the first is permanently evaporated, or if they’ll… restore it.


Original post (and update) follows:


Something is up with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on “Bump-Stock Type Devices.” I was there earlier this morning checking on comment totals: 941.

I thought of something else I wanted to see again a few minutes ago. I found this.

“Comments Not Accepted”

So I cleared cache/cookies/history/et al and attempted a new comment.

“Document ATF_FRDOC_0001-0036 is no longer open for comment.”

That was supposed to be open for 90 days, until June 29, 2018.

Very odd. Anyone know what’s going on?

Added: I also did a search on the comments submitted before it was closed (remember: there had been at least 941):

Inquiries have been made to DOJ and the Federal Register. No responses yet.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (sic) Commenting Now Open

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Bump-Stock Type Devices
Summary

The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA’s effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.

Direct link to comment form.

I submitted my comment a few minutes ago.

Docket number: 2017R-22

The NPRM falsely states: “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”

That is factually incorrect, and inconsistent with objective physical reality. Firing still requires the trigger finger to engage and operate the trigger individually for each shot fired, after the firearm is MANUALLY pulled forward again with the shooter’s off hand.

Bump-fire stocks do not increase the “rate of fire.” The rate of fire from a “single trigger pull” is still 1. Each round discharged still requires an individual manual operation of the trigger IN THIS UNIVERSE. The firearm’s cyclic rate of fire is determined by the physics of the firearm’s internal parts: Mass, resistance, inertia, mechanical engagement, force of discharging cartridge. If anything, a bump-stock-type device would bleed recoil energy and cause a reduction in the theoretical maximum.

Bump-fire stocks do not “accelerate the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire.” Again, that rate is determined by the internal action of the firearm, not an external stock.

A bump-stock-type device merely aids the untrained shooter in achieving something closer to the firearm’s inherent theoretical rate of fire. (Again, since some recoil energy is bled off to assist in manual trigger operation, it probably prevents the shooter ever reaching the actual theoretical maximum.) Bump-fire stocks are training wheels.

The ATF previously ruled that the Akins Accelerator differed from modern bump-stock-type devices in that the spring in the stock acted as an active component to force the firearm into the ready-to-fire position trigger against the shooter’s finger, without additional action by the shooter. With a modern bump-stock-type device, the shooter must MANUALLY return the firearm to the ready-to-fire position, at which time the shooter MANUALLY operates the trigger again.

This is very easy to test, three ways, each using a bump-stock-type device:

1. Pull the trigger a single time and immediately move your finger forward off of the “ledge” (or “finger rest”). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

2. Should this not be clear enough, fire again; this time keeping your trigger finger off of the “ledge” so that your finger holds the trigger down, preventing it from resetting. If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

3. If you are still unclear on the concept, pull the trigger, but keep the rifle pressed back in a conventional non-bump-fire mode (i.e.- don’t pull the rifle forward). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

If one cannot understand this, then that person is mentally incompetent and should be adjudicated as such under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4), and should be removed from office.

If one will not understand this, then that person is guilty of malfeasance and should be removed.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail