Tag Archives: Gun Controller Lies

“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

Gun Controllers, Shut Up and Listen For a Few Minutes

The Parkland high school mass murderer appears to have been a prohibited person, unable to lawfully purchase firearms, who was never reported to NICS.

Sound familiar?

Yes, I know; you’re enjoying your dance in the blood of the Parkland innocents. This looks like the perfect time to call for more restrictions on rights because people are upset. You think this one proves people can’t be trusted, and more laws will fix everything.

After all, who really needs a gun when the government is there to protect you, eh?

I’ve already discussed why you shouldn’t be targeting the tens of millions who didn’t do it. But I know those innocent millions are exactly who you’re afraid of (“Gee, what do they want to do to us, that they need us unarmed?” he wondered rhetorically.)

And NO. Genocide and ethnic cleansing really wouldn’t go down the way you hope. Drop it.

So let’s look at all the legal loopholes that need plugging; the ones you pretend allowed the Parkland horror to happen. Let’s see how well government protected those students and faculty.

Asshole T. Chumbucket (what; you thought I’d give him the notoriety he wanted by naming the SOB?) had quite the history according media reports.

  • He had been suspended from school multiple times for violence, acts of destruction, and weapons violations; incidents going back at least as far as the seventh grade. He was apparently never arrested.
  • Law enforcement was called to his home 39 times in seven years, for threats, harassment, vandalism, and window-peeping. He was apparently never arrested.
  • He was expelled from school for another act of violence. He was apparently never arrested.

Offhand, I’d say the first few dozen failures here were not “weak” gun laws. I’m looking at law enforcement and the school system. That probably explains why both the sheriff and school superintendent are trying to deflect attention by screaming for… Yeah, more gun control laws.

But wait! as the commercial narrator said. There’s more.

The Sun-Sentinel obtained a Department of Children & Familes (DCF) investigative report from September 2016 after the murderer-to-be cut himself on Snapchat.

“Mr. Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for,” the DCF report reads.

But that didn’t really raise any red flags. Of course not. Why worry about a violent and self destructive guy getting a gun?

[The shooter’s mother] said her son did not have a firearm. She said she had confiscated his air gun because he didn’t follow house rules about only shooting it “within the backyard and at targets.”

And the little fact that his mother didn’t even trust him with an airgun still didn’t raise eyebrows.

Apparently DCF joins the line of government agencies getting paid to protect and declining to bother. Maybe Florida taxpayers should skip paying and just burn the government’s “share” for heat; less administrative overhead, and they’d get something for it.

But here’s where things get interesting. The investigation by DCF came after chumboy turned eighteen, after he became a legal adult, after he normally wouldn’t be under their jurisdiction. Why?

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

How does one go about getting “classified” as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida? Does some concerned citizen merely call DCF, who immediately declares him such?

Well, they can in certain emergency situations. Even though the cutting was done, that might count…

…but they came out to investigate because he was already a “vulnerable adult.”

Let me tell you how one gets classed as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida:

If the department has reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable adult in need of services is being abused, neglected, or exploited and is in need of protective services but lacks the capacity to consent to protective services, the department shall petition the court for an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Petition the court? And how does that work?

1. The court shall set the case for hearing within 14 days after the filing of the petition. The vulnerable adult and any person given notice of the filing of the petition have the right to be present at the hearing. The department must make reasonable efforts to ensure the presence of the vulnerable adult at the hearing.

2. The vulnerable adult has the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The court shall appoint legal counsel to represent a vulnerable adult who is without legal representation.

A hearing before a judge, with advance notice, and legal representation. Remember those; it’s important.

(d) Hearing findings.–If at the hearing the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the vulnerable adult is in need of protective services and lacks the capacity to consent, the court may issue an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Apparently a judge adjudicated the asshole to be mentally incompetent due to mental illness. TZP members saw where this was going some paragraphs back. I’ll explain for similarly mentally incompetent media types and other victim disarmers.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
[…]
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

So A. Fishbait was a prohibited person, unable to lawfully possess a firearm. To be a client of DCF he had to be to be mentally deficient.

So why wasn’t he reported to NICS, which could then have denied his rifle purchase? Did Florida simply not know about The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007?

The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

In case you media and other rights violators have forgotten, another bucket of chum was able to kill 32 people and wound 17 more (at a school) because Virginia authorities neglected to report him. NIAA fixed that “loophole” that let governments screw up.

We don’t need more human/civil rights-violating laws. No “assault weapons” bans. No licensing, registrations, “improved” preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restraints.

We need the schools, cops, DCF, and whoever the heck was responsible for reporting to do the freaking jobs they’re sucking taxpayer money to currently not do.

Let’s close the government “I’m too lazy to bother” loophole. Then the FBI’s “What? Multiple credible reports of a named threat? I’m too busy going to Starbucks” loophole — which likewise needs to be closed by closing the FBI — wouldn’t have mattered either.


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.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

[UPDATE] School Shootings

So Shannon TWatts was mouthing off about school shootings again, after the LA middle school shooting. She claimed:

This is the 14th American school shooting in 2018

Someone replied, asking for a list of those shootings, And TWatts told her to Google “Everytown school shootings”. She couldn’t be bothered to provide a link.

So I searched it and found that “Everytown” list. It lists “school shootings” but doesn’t provide links. Per Everytown,

Consistent with expert advice and common sense, Everytown uses a straightforward, fair, and comprehensive definition for a school shooting: any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds, as documented by the press and, when necessary, confirmed through further inquiries with law enforcement or school officials.

I checked on the shootings they list.

Two suicides (one only coincidentally on school grounds), one negligent discharge by a cop, two shots from off campus that hit buildings with no injuries, two drive-bys from off campus with no injuries, one drive-by off campus with no injuries, one shot at 1AM at an “event venue” on an extended college campus, four under-age students shooting students, and one guy killed “near” a school.

So 29% of Everytown’s “school shootings” don’t even meet their own definition of “school shooting.” Some clearly had nothing to do with “school” other than happening on campus well after hours, typically by non-students entering the grounds. One was a freaking cop authorized to have that gun. They had to include a shooting that didn’t involve students, faculty, or school grounds; “near.” Of the shootings that met Everytown’s own definition, most shooters were breaking existing laws in even possessing firearms. Virtually all broke existing laws in bringing the gun on campus.

Real school shootings are a bad thing. They should be addressed, fixed, ended. But inflating the numbers with other incidents is panic-mongering, and shrouds and distorts the facts of real school shootings.

Added, 2/7/2018: They have a couple more! Let’s see what there is to see…

Maybe schools should be cop-free zones. That’s twice in a month.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail