In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Any new bump fire/slide fire info?
cbxjeff
Member Posts: 17,433 ✭✭✭✭
Hasn't been mentioned much lately. When does my friend become a fugitive? What are the penalties? Any law suits pending? I don't want to bail him out!
Thanks guys,
Thanks guys,
It's too late for me, save yourself.
Comments
( i joined a couple months back tired of the NRA playing both sides of the fence
GOA site post hearing to be held soon on the lawsuit to stop also a form letter to the pres to delay screwing over countless legal gun owners
https://gunowners.org/alert22119/
Time is running out.
On March 26, if the courts have failed to act, hundreds of thousands of gun owners will have to dispose of their bump stocks or else risk becoming felons.
And in delaying the destruction of their bump stocks until the courts rule, decent Americans could face a $250,000 fine and ten years in federal prison.
But Gun Owners of America has a strategy to prevent this from happening.
As you know, GOA is challenging these ATF regulations in federal court in Western Michigan, which is in the Sixth Circuit.
Please note: This case is already becoming very expensive, and you can help contribute to it by going to our foundation page here.
There is a lot at stake, including the question of whether these regulations will grease the skids for AR-15s to be classified as machine guns because they can (supposedly) be ?easily converted.?
We have a strong case with high profile plaintiffs ? such as Tim from the Military Arms Channel, GOA?s own Rachel Malone, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
And we have very credible witnesses, such as a former high-ranking ATF official who can document why the agency approved bump stocks, even under the Obama administration!
We also have several gun rights groups that are helping to financially support our case ? such as BamaCarry, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Oregon Firearms Federation, Tennessee Firearms Association, and Wisconsin Gun Owners.
GOA urges the courts to put a ?stay? on the enforcement of the ATF ban
GOA has filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which would hit the ?pause button? on enforcing the bump stock ban until the legality of the regulations can be fully litigated.
Originally, our hearing was scheduled for March 11, which would leave very little time to get a decision prior to the end of the turn-in period deadline (on March 26).
So our lawyers asked that the hearing be moved up to protect gun owners who are waiting to see if they must immediately dispose of their bump stocks.
The judge agreed with our concerns and moved up the hearing to March 6.
This was not as good as we would have liked ? but it was progress.
Our lawsuit has the potential to halt the enforcement of this ban for quite some time.
Already, anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein lamented that GOA?s lawsuit America would keep the bump stock ban ?tied up in court for years.?
But alas, a victory down the road would be meaningless if the 90-day turn-in period had come and gone without a court issuing a stay on the ban?s enforcement.
GOA urges DOJ to ?restart the clock? on the turn-in period
On Wednesday, I sent a letter to the newly-confirmed attorney general, urging him to do just that ? to ?restart the clock? on the 90-day turn in period.
I made the case that while we might eventually win in the courts, hundreds of thousands of gun owners will be risking felony prosecution just while waiting for final court review.
And while that?s a huge problem for gun owners, there?s a separate, simmering problem for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
This question concerns whether the initial regulations were signed illegally. Our own sources inside the DOJ have told us that there has been a raging debate on this point within the department.
Here?s their dilemma: The previous acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, signed the bump stock regulations. But did he have the authority to do this?
This is the question that one judge is asking the plaintiffs in one of the other bump stock cases. (There are currently four cases pending in three circuit courts.)
Our sources tell us that Attorney General William Barr, who was recently confirmed by the Senate, may reissue the regulations under his name. If that restarts the clock, fine.
But we have told him we do not believe he can just ratify the regulations if neither he nor Acting Attorney General Whitaker had the authority to issue them in the first place.
That is the essence of what my letter said to Barr this week.
Unfortunately, the current attorney general does not have a very good record on gun rights. And that?s why we need to appeal to President Trump to order Attorney General Barr to restart the clock.
GOA plans to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court
If the district judge does not enjoin the regulations in time to protect gun owners, we will be prepared to go to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay.
If the Circuit Court of Appeals does not enjoin the regulations in time, we will ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
The good news is that in our recent communication with the district judge, it appears that our judge realizes the time urgency of this case.
As I noted above, he even moved the date of our hearing up a week, given our expressed concern that we should have enough time to appeal his decision if it goes against us. And remember that there are three other bump stock cases that are taking place in two other circuit courts.
Hence it is very likely that, among all the current cases which are challenging the ATF?s bump stock regs, we will get a decision before the March 26 deadline.
All of this to say, there?s a lot that should be occurring within the next month and a half. And we will continue alerting you to what?s happening on this issue.
But for now, please urge President Trump to order the Attorney General to ?restart the clock? on the 90-day turn-in period for bump stocks.
Tell him that he should not be sending hundreds of thousands of gun owners to jail ? especially considering that many of them are supporters who voted for him.
And if you haven?t done so already, you can contribute to the GOA bump stock case by going to our foundation page here.
And you can read our briefs here and here.
So please forward this alert to your pro-gun friends and family. Encourage them to contact President Trump, urging him to extend the turn-in period for bump stocks.
Thanks so much for your help.
A machine gun, as defined in the NFA, is "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."
Please note that to be a machine gun as defined and regulated by the NFA, the firearm must shoot more than one shot using a single function of the trigger.
Bump stocks do not do this, as each round is fired with a separate function of the trigger. Some (even here) say this is just semantics as the end result is a rate of fire that can approach that of a machine gun. It is not semantics. This ruling, by basing the decision on the illegality of the current manufacture of machine guns as prohibited by Reagan's FOPA of 1986 which relies on the NFA definition changes the standard by which machine guns are classified.
With practice, most of us could develop the ability to fire an AR at a rate that the average person would think approaches that of a machine gun, which is why the GOA is concerned about the future of the AR given this re-defining of what a machine gun actually is.
The NFA is a law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt. The changing of that law needs to go through Congress and the change must be signed by the sitting President.
This is a battle that should be chosen not because it has to do with bump-stocks, but because it has to do with the bureaucratic re-writing of legislation that materially changes that legislation, effectively protecting the cowards in Congress and the Senate from taking a stand one way or the other.
Brad Steele
Maybe a Fudd or two will finally wake up, then.
Might not be all bad.
Don
Brad Steele
Asking for more background checking will eliminate a lot of folks from owning firearms. Is that what you are saying?
No.
I am saying that at some point the average idiot will figure out that his rights are being infringed.
Apparently we are not at that stage yet, and it may take a little more restriction (like HR8 as an example, or re-writing legislation by professional bureaucrats as another) to wake these folks up.
Brad Steele
If he had, should we assume you would support the banning of machine guns?
If a law can be changed by fiat given strong public support. Nothing is safe if this is allowed to go through.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Exactly, who knows what they will decide is a machine gun next?
I copied this page from GOA
I hope they do not mind me sharing it go to there site to read all + more
and join up if nothing else , they are trying but more menmberes and $$ always make a difference
GOA to Judge: ATF Regs Threaten AR-15s!
Not a GOA member yet? You can join Gun Owners of America for only $20.
GOA Defends Bump Stocks and AR-15s in Court
On Wednesday, I left the federal district court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where Gun Owners of America delivered its oral arguments in opposition to the ATF?s bump stock ban.
As you know, GOA is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its illegal ban on bump stocks.
This ban is so poorly written that it threatens the legality of AR-15s and other constitutionally-protected firearms.
GOA?s attorney Rob Olson did a fantastic job representing gun owners in court. And he repeatedly hammered the ATF for exceeding its authority and for capriciously reversing itself in banning firearms-related items that were once legal to own.
Olson also made it clear that hundreds of thousands of innocent bump stock owners are now in danger of becoming felons after March 26.
So given this looming deadline, GOA is requesting an injunction from the judge, which would stop ATF from enforcing the ban when the turn-in period ends.
Judge Appears Wary of ATF Overreach
During oral arguments, Olson had to vacillate between fine points of legal doctrine to countering the government?s talking points that could have come from Moms Demand Action.
For example, much of the discussion with the judge centered around a doctrine known as ?Chevron deference.?
If you?re not familiar with this guideline, you might wonder what this has to do with bump stocks. But, in fact, it has quite a bit to do with the subject at hand.
?Chevron deference? is a doctrine that essentially gives a federal agency tremendous latitude in interpreting and applying a federal statute.
Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference ? that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks ? and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.
This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF.
Why a Bump Stock is NOT a Machine Gun
Another much-discussed topic centered around the very nature of a bump stock.
The judge asked GOA?s counsel if a bump stock allows an uninterrupted automatic cycle of fire ? as a machine gun would.
Olson said NO. He explained that a bump stock allows for repeated SEMI-automatic fire in a rapid manner, where each function of the trigger produces one bullet out the end of the barrel ? albeit occurring in rapid, repeated succession.
The government took the contrary view, claiming that a bump stock starts in motion a continuous chain of successive fire.
More to the point, Olson noted that while an untrained shooter could fire an automatic weapon with one hand ? by simply pulling the trigger back ? no person could repeatedly bump fire a semi-automatic weapon with just one hand.
Even the ATF has had to concede in its written regulation that bump firing a weapon requires the shooter to use both hands.
And this gets to the core distinction between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot ?automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.?
One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a ?single function? of the trigger.
But to bump fire a semi-auto, the shooter must use two hands, and in most cases, spend time learning how to actually perfect his individual technique for each different bump stock firearm.
Anyone who has ever bump fired a semi-auto knows there is a learning curve in determining the appropriate amount of force with which to push forward on the firearm using the non-trigger hand.
So in other words, it?s the shooter who creates the bump fire effect. Because ?bump firing,? first and foremost, is a technique, and not a product that is sold over-the-counter.
But that?s not the case with a machine gun. A person who has never touched a gun could easily fire an automatic weapon because it?s the internal mechanism that actually allows repeated rounds to be fired ?automatically.?
The back-and-forth between Olson and the judge on this point was crucial and could play a critical role in the judge?s decision-making process.
No Evidence that Bump Stocks are a Threat to Safety
One of the government?s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of ?public safety.?
Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons ? handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. ? given that all these weapons are inherently ?dangerous.?
GOA?s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.
Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.
This was something of a ?mic drop? moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government?s lawyer could not ? in fact, he refused to ? counter Olson?s statement on this point.
Thus, the oral arguments in the Western district federal court on March 6 established unrebutted testimony that, to date, there is no proof of any documented case where a bump stock was used in a crime.
Even if it is one day determined conclusively that the Las Vegas shooting was the first case where a bump stock was used in a crime ? it would still remain the ONLY case.
And this ONE case would hardly then represent an imminent ?danger to public safety.? Especially when one considers that ?bump firing? a weapon can be achieved without bump stocks, and that these items have been used by hundreds of thousands of gun owners in a perfectly safe manner.
Bump Stock Regs Open Door to Banning AR-15s
Finally, one of the most crucial moments centered around a discussion involving the potential threat to AR-15s.
GOA has repeatedly warned that the ATF?s ban on bump stocks can be easily used by a future anti-gun administration to ban most, if not all, semi-automatic rifles.
Olson repeated this warning to the judge and noted that the threat to AR-15s would inextricably follow from these regulations.
While the government lawyer hotly contested this assertion, Olson noted that there are other common, household items that can be used to bump fire an AR-15 ? such as, rubber bands, belt loops, etc.
So what happens if a homeowner has several AR-15s and a box of rubber bands? Olson noted that the ATF has already successfully prosecuted people who owned unassembled parts that could later be used to (theoretically) convert a firearm into a machine gun.
In other words, the ATF has already shown its true colors on this point.
So if these regulations are eventually allowed to stand, gun owners need to beware.
Don?t be surprised if the ATF ? say, under a President Kamala Harris administration ? deems that any homeowner who possesses both AR-15s and rubber bands has committed a felony because he or she has ?constructively intent? to build a machine gun.
You can be sure that, if this were to occur, the ATF will be called upon to provide ?the best understanding of the law? at that particular time. And all of its prior promises and representations ? that the rule does not apply to semi-autos ? will be worthless.
Judge Questions ATF for their Change in Position
ATF officials are well-known for changing their positions ?on a dime.? And they are guilty of doing this in regard to their position on bump stocks.
In court, the government claimed their prior opinions approving possession of bump stocks in the past were correct based on what they knew, but now they are ?not the best understanding? of the law.
And this led to another ?mic drop? moment, when the judge called them out on their past behavior.
The judge dryly wondered, out loud, why he should believe the ATF?s position today.
The ATF claims that judges like him must adopt the agency?s current interpretation on bump stocks.
But ten years ago, the judge noted, the ATF was arguing the complete opposite, claiming that bump stocks were totally legal under federal law.
It was a great point. And we can only hope the judge will take this point to heart ? that it?s ATF?s arbitrary interpretations that have changed over the years, and not federal law.
Judges typically will not immediately issue their rulings, and this one was no exception. We can probably expect a decision within a week.
What I?ve shared with you here is only the tip of the iceberg from our day in court. But it certainly represents the highlights of what took place.
I want to thank you for helping keep Gun Owners of America on the frontlines. Your support of GOA is what allows us to continue the fight for freedom.
You can help GOA?s defense of bump stocks (and AR-15s) by going here to give a tax-deductible donation.
Thanks so much for your support!
?That incident just shows how some people cannot and should not own firearms.?
Who decides?
I know many a insane asylum or gas chamber would be the best choice for them but there rights would be violated
shows how much the 2nd amendment means to the government to allow it
As you know, GOA is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its illegal ban on bump stocks.
This ban is so poorly written that it threatens the legality of AR-15s and other constitutionally-protected firearms.
GOA?s attorney Rob Olson did a fantastic job representing gun owners in court. And he repeatedly hammered the ATF for exceeding its authority and for capriciously reversing itself in banning firearms-related items that were once legal to own.
Olson also made it clear that hundreds of thousands of innocent bump stock owners are now in danger of becoming felons after March 26.
So given this looming deadline, GOA is requesting an injunction from the judge, which would stop ATF from enforcing the ban when the turn-in period ends.
Judge Appears Wary of ATF Overreach
During oral arguments, Olson had to vacillate between fine points of legal doctrine to countering the government?s talking points that could have come from Moms Demand Action.
For example, much of the discussion with the judge centered around a doctrine known as ?Chevron deference.?
If you?re not familiar with this guideline, you might wonder what this has to do with bump stocks. But, in fact, it has quite a bit to do with the subject at hand.
?Chevron deference? is a doctrine that essentially gives a federal agency tremendous latitude in interpreting and applying a federal statute.
Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference ... that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks ... and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.
This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF.
Why a Bump Stock is NOT a Machine Gun
Another much-discussed topic centered around the very nature of a bump stock.
The judge asked GOA?s counsel if a bump stock allows an uninterrupted automatic cycle of fire -- as a machine gun would.
Olson said NO. He explained that a bump stock allows for repeated SEMI-automatic fire in a rapid manner, where each function of the trigger produces one bullet out the end of the barrel -- albeit occurring in rapid, repeated succession.
The government took the contrary view, claiming that a bump stock starts in motion a continuous chain of successive fire.
More to the point, Olson noted that while an untrained shooter could fire an automatic weapon with one hand -- by simply pulling the trigger back -- no person could repeatedly bump fire a semi-automatic weapon with just one hand.
Even the ATF has had to concede in its written regulation that bump firing a weapon requires the shooter to use both hands.
And this gets to the core distinction between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot ?automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.?
One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a ?single function? of the trigger.
But to bump fire a semi-auto, the shooter must use two hands, and in most cases, spend time learning how to actually perfect his individual technique for each different bump stock firearm.
Anyone who has ever bump fired a semi-auto knows there is a learning curve in determining the appropriate amount of force with which to push forward on the firearm using the non-trigger hand.
So in other words, it?s the shooter who creates the bump fire effect. Because ?bump firing,? first and foremost, is a technique, and not a product that is sold over-the-counter.
But that?s not the case with a machine gun. A person who has never touched a gun could easily fire an automatic weapon because it?s the internal mechanism that actually allows repeated rounds to be fired ?automatically.?
The back-and-forth between Olson and the judge on this point was crucial and could play a critical role in the judge?s decision-making process.
No Evidence that Bump Stocks are a Threat to Safety
One of the government?s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of ?public safety.?
Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons -- handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. -- given that all these weapons are inherently ?dangerous.?
GOA?s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.
Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.
This was something of a ?mic drop? moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government?s lawyer could not -- in fact, he refused to -- counter Olson?s statement on this point.
Thus, the oral arguments in the Western district federal court on March 6 established unrebutted testimony that, to date, there is no proof of any documented case where a bump stock was used in a crime.
Even if it is one day determined conclusively that the Las Vegas shooting was the first case where a bump stock was used in a crime -- it would still remain the ONLY case.
And this ONE case would hardly then represent an imminent ?danger to public safety.? Especially when one considers that ?bump firing? a weapon can be achieved without bump stocks, and that these items have been used by hundreds of thousands of gun owners in a perfectly safe manner.
Bump Stock Regs Open Door to Banning AR-15s
Finally, one of the most crucial moments centered around a discussion involving the potential threat to AR-15s.
GOA has repeatedly warned that the ATF?s ban on bump stocks can be easily used by a future anti-gun administration to ban most, if not all, semi-automatic rifles.
Olson repeated this warning to the judge and noted that the threat to AR-15s would inextricably follow from these regulations.
While the government lawyer hotly contested this assertion, Olson noted that there are other common, household items that can be used to bump fire an AR-15 -- such as, rubber bands, belt loops, etc.
So what happens if a homeowner has several AR-15s and a box of rubber bands? Olson noted that the ATF has already successfully prosecuted people who owned unassembled parts that could later be used to (theoretically) convert a firearm into a machine gun.
In other words, the ATF has already shown its true colors on this point.
So if these regulations are eventually allowed to stand, gun owners need to beware.
Don?t be surprised if the ATF -- say, under a President Kamala Harris administration -- deems that any homeowner who possesses both AR-15s and rubber bands has committed a felony because he or she has ?constructively intent? to build a machine gun.
You can be sure that, if this were to occur, the ATF will be called upon to provide ?the best understanding of the law? at that particular time. And all of its prior promises and representations -- that the rule does not apply to semi-autos -- will be worthless.
Judge Questions ATF for their Change in Position
ATF officials are well-known for changing their positions ?on a dime.? And they are guilty of doing this in regard to their position on bump stocks.
In court, the government claimed their prior opinions approving possession of bump stocks in the past were correct based on what they knew, but now they are ?not the best understanding? of the law.
And this led to another ?mic drop? moment, when the judge called them out on their past behavior.
The judge dryly wondered, out loud, why he should believe the ATF?s position today.
The ATF claims that judges like him must adopt the agency?s current interpretation on bump stocks.
But ten years ago, the judge noted, the ATF was arguing the complete opposite, claiming that bump stocks were totally legal under federal law.
It was a great point. And we can only hope the judge will take this point to heart -- that it?s ATF?s arbitrary interpretations that have changed over the years, and not federal law.
Judges typically will not immediately issue their rulings, and this one was no exception. We can probably expect a decision within a week.
What I?ve shared with you here is only the tip of the iceberg from our day in court. But it certainly represents the highlights of what took place.
I want to thank you for helping keep Gun Owners of America on the frontlines.
It's not a machine gun - you must use the hand crank to load and fire each round individually - it's not considered a destructive device - it's not limited or restricted by the 1968 GCA...
Sportmans guide even sells a kit to turn ruger 10/22 rifles into a Gatling gun
A few of those and some cohern mortars and some beer can muzzle loading field artillery pieces and a puckle gun or parrot gun and your in business - defilade and grazing fire and area denial weapons and grapeshot and airburst and pre placed tannerite in a bucket of buckshot presighted by designated marksmen at known distances and ranging stakes and Barret .50's and your good to go
And did you know that an ammo belt for a belt fed weapon does not violate magazine restrictions...
Bring it.
Mike
They are on board with the Gestapo changing the definition of a machine gun.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
GOA Fighting Gun Control Attacks at Home and from Abroad
This is an important update on some of the important battles that Gun Owners of America is fighting right now.
We are still awaiting a decision on GOA?s court case involving bump stocks.
We had hoped to get a decision by last week. But since we have not, GOA today filed an emergency petition and motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
In it, we are asking the Court of Appeals to order the district court to halt ATF?s regulation until the court issues its decision on our pending motion.
Also, we separately asked the Court of Appeals to stay the regulation until any appeal is heard ? a stay that could hopefully last weeks or months while we make our case as to why the ATF ban is illegal.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
no judge wants to touch a gun related law even a bad one
but dollars to doughnuts if it was a suit by some happy transgender, cant make up there mind if there black white male female , or some plant life the judges would be all over it same with a ruling against trump and the illegal POS invaders but thousands /millions of gun owners are screwed same with all middle class in the country . step on and over us to protect the pond scum and worthless getto dwellers