ATF taking comments regarding their ability to redefine what is and is not a MG.

[Hodgie]

I am not sure why this isn't being publicized more then it has been but it appears the ATF is taking comments regarding them being able to redefine what is and is not a machine gun something that is already clearly stated in our current law.

Here is some information from the GOA regarding their intent as well as the current law.
https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf...5000@gmail.com

1. BUMP STOCKS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF “MACHINE GUN” UNDER THE NFA.

The Obama administration was correct when, in 2010, it correctly determined that bump stocks did not convert semi-autos into fully automatic firearms.

Federal law says, in part, that a machine gun is a weapon that can fire “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.” (26 U.S.C. 5845(b))

According to this definition, a “bump stock” does not fall within this definition.

With a “bump stock,” each and every round is discharged as the result of an independent pull of the trigger. So it is simply untrue that the “bump stock” assists the discharge of more than one round “by a single function of the trigger” -- no matter how fast the gun discharges rounds.

One pull, one discharge. This is the classic textbook definition of a SEMI-automatic firearm.

If the ATF were to illegitimately use a standard based on “increasing the rate of fire” to ban or regulate bump stocks, then what is to stop it from illegitimately holding that other rate-increasing devices -- like belt loops, sticks or fingers -- are “machineguns” as well? YouTube abounds with examples of people using these items to increase the rate of fire of their semi-autos.


2. ATF HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BAN OR REGULATE BUMP STOCKS.

The ATF's statutory authority, contained at 6 U.S.C. 531, is very narrow. Nowhere does federal law give ATF the general authority to regulate the safety of firearms, accessories, or parts. This is important, because, if federal law did do this, then it could administratively ban semi-automatics, or handguns, or all guns.

Constitutionally, the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Our rights are not privileges from the government that can be revoked or regulated at will. And regulating or banning bump stocks would serve as unconstitutional infringements.

Here is the link to submit a comment directly to the ATF regarding this.
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...s#open-comment

Please know this is not like those useless White House petitions the ATF has an obligation to read and respond to each and ever comment that is sent it. This and the 300,000 comments are the reasons why we still have M855 ammunition at the local Walmart.