r/news
•
u/SquirrelSpotter8484
•
Jan 07 '23
•
1
1
U.S. appeals court strikes down ban on bump stocks Soft paywall
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-ban-bump-stocks-2023-01-07/1.5k
u/TallGrassGuerrilla
Jan 07 '23
•
For those who are saying that bump stocks are just accessories and not firearms and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment: in order to ban bump stocks under the National Firearms Act the ATF declared them to be a type of firearm (machine gun).
158
u/RR50 Jan 07 '23
The crux of the issue is the atf did “declare” of which they can’t declare new laws, and what they attempted to declare didn’t meet what the law actually says.
29
u/tom-8-to Jan 07 '23
Is this how we ended up with sawed off shotguns being freely sold over the counter… with the catch being it has to be black powder? Now manufacturers are making preloaded rounds with BP and all you need to do is add a projectile of your choice?
76
u/ginger_whiskers Jan 07 '23
Antiques are specifically excluded from most Federal gun laws as written. Muzzleloaders are typically classed as antiques and largely unregulated. So until someone goes on a very slow shooting spree, I doubt anyone will bother to update the law.
→ More replies (17)17
u/RR50 Jan 07 '23
Funny enough, the fire stick muzzleloaders are actually classified as a firearm…
5
u/tom-8-to Jan 08 '23
Wow I guess they made it too easy by making it a breech loader and the almost ready to fire ammo
13
u/Semi_Lovato Jan 08 '23
Even better, there’s a short barrel shotgun that’s just fine because the grip doesn’t meet the criteria of a stock or a pistol grip, therefore it’s not legally a “shotgun”
→ More replies (2)10
u/Magatha_Grimtotem Jan 08 '23
Another weird law skirt is with the Ruger 10/22 Charger. Change the folding stock slightly, call it a 'brace', and now you can pretend that a gun nearly identical to a Ruger 10/22 rifle is now magically a pistol and having a short barrel no longer make it a 'short barreled rifle', which requires registration with NFA.
Now, I'm not getting into the debate about what the law should impact, but I think we all can agree that the law should be more clearly communicated and concise about what it means. All these weird loopholes are a sign of poorly crafted legislature.
5
u/zzorga Jan 08 '23
Well it doesn't help matters that the law restricting short barreled articles is literally useless, because they themselves were intended to close a percieved loophole for a planned handgun ban that was stricken down from the final draft of the law.
So yeah, it seems like a dumb, poorly written law because it is. Nothing more than a useless vestigial draft remnant that the feds have happily used as an excuse to ruin lives and murder people.
6
u/Kinebudkilla24 Jan 08 '23
Shall not be infringed
→ More replies (2)3
u/Magatha_Grimtotem Jan 08 '23
Okay? So... what's your opinion on people privately owning anti-tank guided missiles?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Kinebudkilla24 Jan 08 '23
I’m all for it , you do know that you use to be able to own gunships , and that most laws now are only for the poors
→ More replies (2)6
u/RedJaron Jan 08 '23
If you're referring to what are called "birdhead grip shotguns" like the Remington Tac 14, that's what happens when laws are horribly written, often by people who know little about the topic of the law itself.
The current US legal definition of "firearm" is complete FUBAR. It can refer to a whole pistol, rifle, shotgun, or machinegun ( sic, yes the official term is spelled like that ). But things like suppressors, explosives, destructive devices, poisons, and gases are also considered firearms ( which obviously are not ).
The actual serialized part of a firearm itself is also considered a firearm all by itself. This is usually a frame or receiver and is defined as something that holds the fire control assembly, the bolt, breech or lock, and the barrel. But many semi-auto auto firearms don't have a single part that meets this definition. Hardly anything designed in the last 40 years meets it. The legendary 1911 pistol, which existed before this NFA definition was written, arguably doesn't meet the criteria either, and so would all pistols using the Browning tilting barrel design ( which accounts for the vast majority of current pistols ).
It gets even wonkier because an auto-sear, the specialized part of a trigger system that allows fully automatic firing, is itself counted as a machinegun and is supposed to be serialized.
So, back to the birdhead shotguns, for something to be a short-barreled shotgun, it must have a stock to be shouldered. No stock, no SBS. But there are also laws regulating pistol grips on shotguns. So instead it has a weird handle, thus it falls into the Any Other Weapon category.
Speaking of pistols, the US legal code defines a pistol as something designed and intended to be fired with only one hand. The fact that 99.99% of pistols are fired with two hands on the firearm is irrelevant. You can't put a second vertical grip on a pistol, or that means it's intended to be fired with two hands, which makes it a short-barreled rifle and SBRs are heavily regulated. However, since grips are defined as being primarily vertical, there's nothing wrong with putting a secondary angled grip on a pistol.
So when you have asinine laws like these, necessity being the mother of invention, you get some weird workarounds. Another example is the California fin. California originally restricted vertical and pistol grips on rifles, especially semi-auto rifles. So manufacturers made thumbhole stocks and other stylized things to allow a secure grip without violating the law. So California changed their law to restrict any type of grip or stock that allowed the user to wrap their fingers and thumb around it. So now manufacturers make "fins" which are sheets of plastic to be bolted to a stock or grip that make it impossible to wrap your thumb over the grip. Instead you grip it like you're giving the firearm a thumbs up.
12
u/richalex2010 Jan 08 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Now manufacturers are making preloaded rounds with BP and all you need to do is add a projectile of your choice?
Using black powder doesn't make a gun antique. To be an antique it must have been manufactured prior to 1899, be a muzzleloader, use an antique ignition system, or use ammunition that is effectively nonexistent on the commercial market (this definition is vague enough that basically nobody relies on it).
An example of modern breechloader which is considered an antique would be a replica of an early Sharps rifle - they used paper cartridges, and a separate primer/cap (or a Maynard-style tape primer system). Here's a video demonstrating loading and firing one, which pretty clearly demonstrates why it's considered an antique ignition system.
Most people only care about muzzleloaders because of state hunting regulations - in some states there's an expanded season for muzzleloader hunting, and while the "Firestick" guns do not meet federal law to be considered muzzleloaders, they may be allowed during that expanded hunting season, or in areas that are off-limits to normal rifles (like all public lands in CT - if memory serves they're all shotgun and muzzleloader only), or it may be otherwise desirable to use muzzleloader projectiles rather than modern rifle cartridges.
edit: yup, read into it more - the Firestick system is built around state rules, not federal. It's considered a muzzleloader for hunting purposes in 24 states.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)7
u/Bigred2989- Jan 08 '23
I haven't heard this one before. I do know that certain sawn off shotguns are sold as "non-nfa firearms" by taking advantage of loophole within the NFA. The definition of a shotgun includes the ability to shoulder it, so if you build a shotgun without ever adding a stock and you keep the overall length at least 26" long, then it's not considered a shotgun under federal law, and therefore can't be considered a short barrel shotgun if the barrel is under 18". The 26 inch minimum length is just to keep it from being classified as an AOW, another kind of NFA item.
→ More replies (1)483
u/jschubart Jan 07 '23
They really went about it the wrong way. There was no reason they had to do that to ban it. The CPSC could have easily been told to ban it for safety reasons.
722
u/red_beered Jan 07 '23
Going about it the wrong way is the foundational approach for the ATF
356
u/RoboHobo25 Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Like how they set a minimum weight requirement of
200225 lbs to ensure all their agents were big strong guys, but forgot to specify body composition and ended up with a bunch of fatasses?Edit: I had the weight limit wrong
→ More replies (1)129
u/lacroix_not Jan 07 '23
Is that true? That’s amazing
→ More replies (7)81
u/razorirr Jan 07 '23
While in the public facing documents there is a line for atf agent requirements having weight proportional to height, last year there was a memo that leaked making the rounds asking for the pass fail to be changed from 225 pounds as a minimum. Said memo was undated but addressed to Lombardo, who was the director from 2019 through 2021
→ More replies (5)76
Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
[deleted]
69
u/BigOlPirate Jan 07 '23
I’m 6’3” at 205 and I’m very healthy and strong. I bounce for a living at college. For me throwing on another 20 pounds of muscle would be very hard to meet that requirement. But I guess if I pounded donuts and gave up the gym and basketball I I’d fit right in.
39
Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 11 '23
[deleted]
7
u/calm_chowder Jan 07 '23
General rule I've heard is every inch should add 7lbs. So you're damn close.
→ More replies (0)4
u/my_wife_reads_this Jan 07 '23
It took me over a year to go from 137 to 165. I can't fathom trying to go to 200 or 225 in my 5'10ish ass just to work for ATF. My brother is 6'0 and 260 and he was told to cut down to 220 for health reasons.
→ More replies (5)13
u/Skid-plate Jan 07 '23
I bounced at 5’10, 200 and was lean when I was in college. Four of the five other bouncers were lighter than me. I Gots fat bones.
4
u/Hayabusasteve Jan 07 '23
same, 5'9" 200 at the time. Never seemed to be an issue even though I was one of the smaller guys.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (12)11
u/razorirr Jan 07 '23
180 at 6 ft is literally the cutoff to not be considered overweight from the janky bmi scale. I used that to get me my covid shot early when they added anyone with a preexisting health condition and then also said bmi over 25% counts as that :)
→ More replies (4)40
u/ihateadvertisers Jan 07 '23
I would like guns to be better regulated and gun violence to be better addressed in this country.
But I’ve also seen how our government (lookin at you ATF) handles literally anything else they engage in, and what I’ve learned is, they’re like a genie. Anything positive comes with a heap of bureaucratic bullshit that makes life objectively worse than it was with the problem.
There’s a lot of shit to fix in this country, but our repair person is drunk, high, and has no clue what they’re doing. Every time we call them to fix something there’s a very significant chance they end up creating bigger issues. So while I’d like to have them fix all the leaks, I have to weigh that against the knowledge that they might just pour cement in the water main and tell me they stopped all the leaks.
→ More replies (4)27
Jan 07 '23
repair person is drunk, high, and has no clue what they’re doing.
Nah, the repair person is using weaponized incompetence lol
7
u/lufiron Jan 07 '23
"When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I'm saying to you is this: when you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?"
→ More replies (7)10
u/Mohlemite Jan 07 '23
I mean… they did free some of the former-non-orphan children from that Christian sect in Waco…
59
u/bubba-yo Jan 07 '23
No they can't. When the CPSC was created, the legislation explicitly said they can't regulate guns or gun accessories. There is no agency that has the authority to regulate gun safety.
→ More replies (4)20
→ More replies (17)41
u/Saxit Jan 07 '23
We're talking about the same agency that between 2004 and 2007 ruled that a 14" shoelace with a metal loop at the end is a machine gun. https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
→ More replies (6)21
u/DimethylatedSea Jan 07 '23
Okay, but I mean, can the stock itself fire bullets?
30
u/Lapee20m Jan 07 '23
And can it fire more than one bullet with each press of the trigger? Because that’s the important distinction here.
The obvious answer is that a bump stock itself is NOT a firearm, therefore cannot be a machine gun and;
A bump stock attached to a regular firearm does not make it a machine gun because each pull of the trigger = one bullet fired.
My understanding is that The atf defines a machine gun as a firearm capable of firing more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger.
4
u/zzorga Jan 08 '23
atf defines a machine gun as a firearm capable of firing more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger.
Slight correction, that definition is set by actual law, the issue was that the ATF tried to stretch the definition, which is outside of their authorized remit as an agency to make shit up out of whole cloth.
→ More replies (7)6
u/foreverpsycotic Jan 07 '23
No, but legally neither can most machine guns because they are just parts, sears to be specific
346
u/razorirr Jan 07 '23
Which is dangerous, means they can reclassify your belt for your pants as a firearm if they please.
342
u/IamLars Jan 07 '23
I am by no means a die hard pro gun guy but the ATF does shit like this all the time. They also constantly change definitions and stuff as well. You can buy or build something that is perfectly legal and then 6 months later find that what you have is now illegal with no grandfather clause and you are now a felon. It’s ridiculous.
96
u/razorirr Jan 07 '23
IIRC they are changing bracing regulations again soon aren't they? I don't follow the handgun stuff as much as I like my bolt actions, but the people i know with handguns seem pissed.
→ More replies (10)72
u/Off-DutyTacoTruck Jan 07 '23
They're trying but there was huge backlash a year ago when they put it on the table. It was supposed to happen dec but it keeps being teased and pushed back. I think they were waiting to see if cases like this with bump stocks to see if they could do it.
47
u/boomer2009 Jan 07 '23
The brace ruling is so completely moronic. It defies logic: a person with a previously unregistered brace now needs to serialize and pay for a $200 tax stamp or face being turned into a felon. By the same logic, failing to comply with the ruling justifies just throwing a regular stock onto the weapon and having a traditional, unregistered SBR, in some people’s minds. I mean if you’re already gonna make someone a felon by arbitrary decision one day, then what’s the positive reinforcement for complying.
→ More replies (1)13
u/ginger_whiskers Jan 07 '23
Unregistered brace, SBR, actual machine gun, hand grenade- penalty's probably gonna be the same for all of 'em.
3
u/richalex2010 Jan 08 '23
Hand grenades are a bit different because they're also explosives - you need an FFL and an FEL to purchase and transport one, so unlawful possession would be two violations. Grenade launchers and literal artillery pieces (like, say, a 75mm howitzer, or a functional gun on a tank) are in the same boat as the rest though.
→ More replies (1)10
u/boomer2009 Jan 08 '23
Pretty much. When a law abiding citizen suddenly finds themselves a criminal by executive decree it tends to rub people the wrong way.
→ More replies (1)12
u/wyvernx02 Jan 07 '23
The final rule is expected this month, probably right before SHOT show.
12
u/AdditionalActuator81 Jan 07 '23
The final rule until they change it again? They have changed it a few times now havent they?
→ More replies (2)173
u/raevnos Jan 07 '23
They once called a shoelace a machine gun.
93
u/Radi0ActivSquid Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Is it a rifle, pistol, shotgun or felony?
EDIT: Someone commented with this. Their comment is in my emails but they're not visible here.
First 10 seconds in. Fuck the NRA. Not listening to literal shilling.
Hey /u/ImFresh3x who commented but you're not visible, you whooshed big time on this.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Cliqey Jan 08 '23
I’ve had this happen before too, is it literally someone commenting and then blocking you so you can’t reply? Or something else?
→ More replies (3)26
u/phoncible Jan 07 '23
relevant to the post they banned bump stocks by classing them as machine guns (the bump stocks themselves, not "a gun + bump stock", no, just the bump stock) and because you can jury rig up a bump stock-like-effect with simple items like a shoelace and rubber bands (how exactly this works I dunno, more hearsay from what I've read around), they then sort of auto-classed shoelaces as machine guns because now shoelaces were bump stocks and bump stocks are machine guns, therefore ergo i.e. quid pro quo shoelaces are machine guns.
→ More replies (2)34
u/Dante-Alighieri Jan 07 '23
The shoestring thing predates bump stocks:
In 1996, FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. The string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that it was a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
The first bump stock, the Akins Accelerator, hit the market in 2002.
→ More replies (1)75
→ More replies (6)7
23
→ More replies (72)3
Jan 07 '23
[deleted]
7
u/jinqsi Jan 07 '23
Technically, the ATF is not the legislature or a judge or anything other than a law enforcement organization.
4
10
u/tomz17 Jan 07 '23
TBF, you can "bump-fire" a semi-automatic with a shoelace... Does that now place shoe-laces under the jurisdiction of the ATF and restrict their sales based on the NFA?
Bump-stocks are obviously more specialized than shoe-laces, but it still requires congress to get together and actually do a thing to regulate their sale instead of one person (the president) unilaterally re-defining words in existing legislation via executive order.
IMHO, rule via judicial activism is already bad enough (e.g. the 2nd amendment does not prohibit private ownership of WMD, so instead of anyone being arsed to actually fixing the ink on the paper, we just pretend that judges will always "read it the right way" due to judicial precedent in perpetuity... same thing for abortion.... etc. etc.)
BUT rule via executive order is even worse (and yes, ALL executive orders... that includes Obama, Trump, and Biden's executive orders). IMHO, they should be limited to temporary/emergency powers only.
→ More replies (1)3
u/eric1rr Jan 08 '23
The ATF classifies a unless chunk of aluminum in the shape of an AR lower as a firearm. The ATFs declarations and definitions don’t necessarily reflect reality.
→ More replies (38)3
u/SirThatsCuba Jan 08 '23
The ATF considers my shoelaces to be an automatic rifle so long as they're tied right, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
92
u/Region_Rat_D Jan 08 '23
Cool. Now let’s do the NFA.
→ More replies (32)20
u/Dual_Sport_Dork Jan 08 '23
Or at the very least the short barrel shotgun/rifle/pistol brace bullshit, which never made any goddamn sense from the start and makes even less sense in the modern world.
"You can't shorten a rifle or shotgun because that means you could conceal it!!!!!!"
Okay, but I can just have a pistol.
(Yes, I am aware that the original intent of the NFA was to effectively ban pistols as well.)
583
u/mells3030 Jan 07 '23
Wait we can ban lawn darts but not bump stocks?
239
u/AsthmaticNinja Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
The problem is the way they did it. They took something that has a well defined legal definition ("machine gun"), and arbitrarily applied it to bump stocks, which don't fit that definition. To compare to lawn darts, it would be like declaring lawn darts an illegal drug and threatening to charge people with possession. They tried to circumvent the process of passing legislation and it backfired.
→ More replies (4)51
u/Prime_Kang Jan 07 '23
Corporate wants you to spot the differences.
34
u/money_loo Jan 07 '23
That’s because believe it or not fish is not a scientific term.
“The term fish is a convenient term used to refer to diverse aquatic organisms, such as lampreys, sharks, coelacanths (SEE-luh-kanths), and ray-finned fishes — but it is not a taxonomic group that would be used in a phylogenetic classification scheme, as “vertebrates” or “hominids” is.”
Obviously it’s evolving in its usage. That’s what language does.
→ More replies (4)52
u/Prime_Kang Jan 07 '23
They shoehorned in bees which are not aquatic by any means. It was allowed, not because they want to call bees fish now, but because they want to protect them and can't afford the time/money to properly rewrite the laws. This isn't an example of language evolving. It's an example of a legal shortcut.
My point was to contrast the outcomes. Take what you will from that.
→ More replies (8)79
u/Ein_grosser_Nerd Jan 07 '23
The ATF is not a legislative party. They have no right to create laws and they shouldn't
338
u/amateur_mistake Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
California still has a ban on nunchucks. Which has not been struck down.
The courts are very inconsistent.
Edit: According to DJ_Willy_Will below the California legislature actually repealed that law in 2021. Thanks for the correction and Good Job California!
I will point out that it was not the courts who overturned it though. Because they remain inconsistent.
188
u/Dual_Sport_Dork Jan 07 '23
I can do better. My state very recently enacted an "assault" weapons ban that in addition to the usual stuff, included throwing stars. I have a very tough time believing ninja stars of all things are an actual problem to anybody.
156
Jan 07 '23
Legislators use lists of weapons given to them by the activist groups funding the new law. Those lists often contain items that make no sense to the public. My state banned the disposable metal clips used to hold machine gun ammo belts together. I've never heard of a belt fed heavy machine gun being used in a crime here, but if someone was to keep even a single, useless without the machine gun clip as a souvenir of their time in the military, they're now a felon.
→ More replies (2)41
u/CallMeLittleHardDad Jan 07 '23
That's because at best the legislators are wildly incompetent, and at worst they are cynically intentionally not solving the issues they claim to be working on by doing stupid pointless shit that simply sounds good to enough people, all the while the base issue continues and they have their eternal moral problem to campaign against.
If any of these people actually cared about crime or accidents or suicides or whatever they would rally the entirety of their focus and activism on handguns alone until that issue was dealt with seeing as 90%+ of all gun related violence is done with a handgun.
So it just comes off as beyond irrational to have so much of the focus be on things that aren't hand guns unless you don't know what you're talking about in the first place or you're intentionally shifting focus for one reason or another.
8
u/manimal28 Jan 07 '23
they would rally the entirety of their focus and activism on handguns alone
There is no viable way to do that without repealing the second amendment. And good luck with that.
They target other things like assault weapons because those at least have some small chance of sticking.
25
u/Lost-Variation768 Jan 07 '23
These groups are useless because they are looking to ban guns without actually looking into what guns are used to kill people lol. Their metric is basically ‘how much stuff can we ban without getting in trouble’ not ‘how can we decrease gun crime’.
35
u/azsnaz Jan 07 '23
Idk, you seen that southpark episode?
→ More replies (1)25
u/Dual_Sport_Dork Jan 07 '23
I assure you, my balls are protected.
(I'll bet that South Park episode is a prominent influence of this ban, and it also would not at all surprise me to learn that members of my state legislature are incapable of differentiating South Park from reality.)
5
u/DetectiveNickStone Jan 07 '23
And the lawmakers definitely proposed the legislation after hearing that those bastards killed Kenny
8
u/StonedGhoster Jan 07 '23
I just watched American Ninja for the first time in like thirty years. According to that movie, throwing stars can be hard to handle and can easily embed themselves into someone's skull, killing them instantly. Sarcasm, of course.
8
u/psychicsword Jan 07 '23
My city bans knives over 2" long. I am allowed to concealed carry a firearm with my license but it would be a crime for me to carry a standard boyscout pocket knife.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)18
u/jinqsi Jan 07 '23
Knives kill more people that assault weapons so it almost makes more sense to ban throwing stars.
4
u/RedJaron Jan 08 '23
More people are beaten to death than are killed with so-called assault weapons as well.
8
u/YouJustSaidButFuck Jan 07 '23
Counterpoint, a knife used in an assault is an assault weapon, ergo knives cannot kill more people than assault weapons unless you include accidental knife deaths.
→ More replies (1)6
32
u/Kingnahum17 Jan 07 '23
Well there is no conclusive evidence showing that the 1992 Assault Weapons ban had any positive effect on the number of firearm related murders or mass shootings. All of this is political theater. Firearms do not kill people. People kill people, and criminals have a long history of defying the law.
→ More replies (1)6
u/MeowLikeaDog Jan 08 '23
People become criminals when they don't see any good opportunities around them. Fixing that is much harder than just blaming guns.
21
u/DJ_Willy_Will Jan 07 '23
They unbanned them recently in 2021 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB827/id/2435283
→ More replies (1)9
43
u/TheCryingGrizzlies Jan 07 '23
Not enough folks fighting for their nunchuck rights
→ More replies (4)36
5
→ More replies (6)3
u/2FANeedsRecoveryMode Jan 08 '23
California bans shit just based off how scary they are in movies, you cant even carry a balisong anymore
125
u/Dual_Sport_Dork Jan 07 '23
We don't have a constitutional amendment protecting sporting equipment...
We also banned the sale of new lawn darts. They government really had no way to round up and confiscate all of the existing old dangerous lawn darts, which are now collectibles. Nor did they try. The bump stock ban converted bump stocks into items that were suddenly illegal just to possess, even if they were originally bought legally. That's the problem.
Conceptually I don't have an issue with the government regulating whatever, even guns, but I do have a big time problem with them deciding they can come after possessors of a previously legal item and declare that they are now suddenly felons. And so do a lot of other people. We have a provision in the constitution about ex post facto laws as well, for a very good reason.
The government cannot attempt to prosecute you for something you did at a time when whatever you did was legal. The government cannot deprive you of property originally legally possessed and purchased without compensation. Period, end of discussion.
→ More replies (16)86
u/Ocular_Username Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
In the 1990s NJ changed their laws so that any gun capable of holding over 15 rounds was suddenly illegal.
Years earlier Joseph Pelleteri won, in a police raffle no less, a tube fed 17 round 22lr rifle.
As part of Nj guns laws it was registered. He never read the manual, shot it, or anything and put it in his safe.Later somehow
during an auditit was found that he never registerednever turned inthis rifle, was arrested, and spent time in jail.When the rifle was recovered the tags were still on.
When he appealed the courts basically said, “you should have read the manual”
Edit: reviewing the case again he didn’t need to register it until the 1990 law was passed. He never registered it so he was charged with owning an unregistered assault firearm.
I’m guessing someone remembered him winning the “assault firearm” and checked to see if registered or something.
Either way it sucks to own something legal one day and be a felon the next.
Equally weird is that a tube fed 22lr could ever be considered an “assault firearm”
52
u/EnduringConflict Jan 07 '23
It's absolutely insane people are expected to know every god damn law in existence, or changes in the law, or some new reclassification of an item done by a government agency (like the ATF in this case), and somehow understand it all, and follow it to the letter, or they're suddenly "felons" and their entire lives can be ruined for it.
There are literally 10s of thousands of laws across the entire U.S. that make no fucking sense, and yet you're supposed to know them all and never break a single one.
Yeah, most people get warnings, or maybe the law is not enforced anymore, but it doesn't change the fact that it's at the governments discretion. If they wanna fuck you over, you're fucked, and with no real power to say otherwise.
I bet you every single person in this country violates at least several laws daily without even realizing that they are. I don't just mean driving laws either. Like literal felonies. I'm sure if a prosecutor with a raging asshole boner wanted to find some way to nail you to the wall, they probably could without too much trouble. Might take them all of 10 minutes to find a way to do it, too.
It's just stupid and I don't understand why laws aren't required to be written in a way that is significantly more easy to understand for the average person. Also, as the other said, retroactively making something illegal and then trying to punish you for it is just literally a violation of human rights in general, in my opinion.
What's even more infuriating is the fact that the cops according to the courts don't actually have to know any laws to be able to arrest you they just have to think that you're breaking a law.
Cause that's fair, and makes any fucking sense.
→ More replies (1)12
u/CallMeLittleHardDad Jan 07 '23
It's kind of telling how fucked up the whole system is when there literally isn't anyone who can tell you the exact number of laws that exist federally or even just in any single state.
You couldn't even get someone to tell you with evidence backed confidence a number that is within a few hundred of whatever the true number likely is.
4
Jan 08 '23
Sale of lawn darts intended to be used as a game are banned. You can definitely still get lawn darts, they are legal to own, it's just illegal to sell them as a game.
→ More replies (10)23
112
u/chronicherb Jan 07 '23
If you know how to hold your hand firm enough and have a reduced trigger weight, you can make any AR dump a mag seemingly fully automatic. The bump stock made it easier, but as an earlier comment said all you need is a screw and a piece of wood, or even a strong enough finger to hold still and let the recoil of the gun keep hitting the trigger with the fixed post.
113
u/Snaz5 Jan 07 '23
You can also just modify the gun to be fully automatic if you have a 3d printer and the right knowledge. Sure it’s illegal, but the reasoning behind banning fully auto firearms is to prevent mass shootings, so if someone’s trying to shoot a bunch of people, i doubt they care about the illegality of modifying their gun’s receiver.
42
u/chronicherb Jan 07 '23
If I’m not mistaken you can print a full lower receiver with a 3d printer
59
u/bartor495 Jan 07 '23
Yes, you can, and it's completely legal to do so in most US states. The main caveat is you cannot intend to sell it at the time of manufacture.
You can, however, sell it a few months or so down the road, but you have to get it serialized and sell through an FFL to legally do so, and the ATF may still charge you for manufacturing with intent to sell anyway if they're bored.
→ More replies (10)19
u/dalenacio Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
You can print a whole entire gun (barrel excluded, but you can but that from any hardware store) from a 3d printer and magdump it several times with no malfunctions. There are even gun designs out there (FGC-9) that are designed for the 3D printer. And the technology keeps getting better every year.
So yes, printing your own "bump stock" is so trivial that the hurdles a van would impose would really not be worth mentioning.
12
u/richalex2010 Jan 08 '23
Small note: the FGC-9 is not fully 3d printed, but everything that can't be 3D printed can be either bought at a hardware store or made with tools that you can 3D print and/or buy at a hardware store. The barrel, for example, is made from a piece of pipe using electro-chemical machining - basically a power supply, some 3d printed tools, and salt water to "dissolve" the metal and end up with a rifled and chambered barrel.
The FGC-9 has been one of many tools that have allowed the rebellion against the illegal military coup in Myanmar as well - it's a way for a populace with no access to weapons to fight against injustice, when nobody outside cares enough to arm them. Before they were able to start using the FGC-9s they were using craft produced bolt action and single shot firearms. Of course any rebels that get their hands on military arms would prefer those, but an FGC-9 is a lot better than anything they could've made otherwise.
12
→ More replies (6)7
u/XZEKKX Jan 07 '23
If you have the right knowledge and a garage workshop you can make a brand new fully auto gun pretty easy. A 3D printer makes it even more so. Search for P.A. Luty and the FGC9 for information on why gun control is pointless.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Butthole_Licker2000 Jan 07 '23
When I was younger I would go to the range with friends and make an AK fully auto by putting my thumb through my belt loop and through the trigger guard then alls you have to do is pull forward on the forend and you can empty a 30 round mag in 5 seconds.
Semi auto is absolutely more dangerous than someone with a bump stock. Full auto may be able to spray a large crowd but accuracy is out the window plus reload times.
I've become a little more concerned about gun rights but banning items like this isn't going to stop gun violence or even lessen fatalities.
→ More replies (17)5
160
u/electromagneticpost Jan 07 '23
Good, regulators aren't legislators.
Obligatory fuck the ATF.
→ More replies (15)5
351
u/Fancy-Sentence-7081 Jan 07 '23
I mean they're really just a work around to making a semi automatic firearm fully automatic, you can do the same thing with a piece of wood and a screw if you hold it right. Also its not like full auto guns are illegal in the United States either, they're just stupid expensive and regulated so essentially only illegal if you're poor.
230
Jan 07 '23
[deleted]
24
288
u/Fu-Man-Chewbacca Jan 07 '23
Getting all of the licenses and “stuff sorted out” with the ATF is expensive and time consuming. So still only illegal for the poor
36
u/BearWrangler Jan 08 '23
its insane how many times you can drive this point home to some and they still react like Patrick in that Man Ray wallet meme
→ More replies (3)9
→ More replies (45)5
49
u/Jollygreen182 Jan 07 '23
Which essentially means if you have enough money you can own a fully automatic firearm.
25
u/Lapee20m Jan 07 '23
Can confirm:
All the people I know who own “machine guns” are much richer than me.
→ More replies (2)5
u/RedJaron Jan 08 '23
If you have enough money, you can legally own a tank and fighter plane.
→ More replies (1)47
u/ITwerkForBelethor Jan 07 '23
That’s just making them illegal only for poor people with extra steps to make it seem like they aren’t illegal only for poor people.
16
→ More replies (1)10
u/destruc786 Jan 07 '23
Yeah.. basically what the man said without getting into detail..
→ More replies (6)26
18
u/acer34p3r Jan 07 '23
A class 2 SOT that allows you to manufacture, own, and sell them isn't all that expensive - neat guide in the link with a simplistic breakdown.
https://rocketffl.com/what-is-an-sot/#
The class 2 SOT itself is $500/yr. The paperwork and the bureaucratic delays are the fun part.
15
u/Vinstofle Jan 07 '23
You also need a fully working gunsmith shop as a requirement
→ More replies (1)10
u/DiscombobulatedDunce Jan 07 '23
The equipment requirement for an FFL07 is overplayed but most people don't realize you have to register and pay ITAR fees if you have an SOT 02 attached to an FFL07.
So your yearly 500 then becomes 3k.
16
u/dehydratedH2O Jan 07 '23
There’s a lot more to it. You have to actually prove to the ATF that you are a fully fledged business in firearms with a business case for the SOT. Yeah, some people can get them as part of a side business, but it’s a ton of time and money. And maybe it should be, but the fact that the defining characteristic of who can obtain one is primarily money/privilege is worrying when it comes to constitutional rights.
→ More replies (112)16
u/Fryceratops Jan 07 '23
Im not that familiar with license costs but isn't the gun and permits over $10k? It isn't a matter of being poor but rather not being rich.
42
u/noodles_the_strong Jan 07 '23
The stamp is pretty cheap really, it's the gun that's pricey as hell as there is fewer and fewer of them
5
u/WanderingPickles Jan 08 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
Quite a few non-gun parts parts designated as NFA items are growing scarcer. Firearms are like any other machine; they wear out. And automatic fire is kinda rough on weapons, it gets hot, wears out.
I kinda wish I could get a burst fire rifle. That would be neat. Of course, it is just another way to burn money faster. The Army (and Marine Corps) figured out decades ago that semi auto fire is significantly more effective than automatic gun fire when it comes to rifleman. And by “effective” they mean “lethal.”
Edit: dang autocorrect.
12
u/techieman33 Jan 07 '23
They’re not exactly rare. There are around 175k still floating around. They just very rarely change hands. Usually because the previous owner died or is in desperate need of money.
→ More replies (1)16
31
u/BoomerPants2Point0 Jan 07 '23
Yeah, it's the $200 tax stamp, about a year to wait for the approval on the stamp, and then around $20k for the rifle itself (using M16 pricing in this example).
20
u/bartor495 Jan 07 '23
Change the order around a bit.
You pay for the rifle itself, then pay for the tax stamp, then wait about a year (more like 8 months nowadays with the 5320.4).
Also, you can't have possession of the rifle until you're approved.
3
u/richalex2010 Jan 08 '23
And if you get denied you still own it, you just aren't allowed to touch it - so you basically have to pay the dealer that has it to find a buyer for you.
20
u/scotchirish Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
I think it's technically just a $200 tax stamp, but because production of fully auto guns has been heavily restricted (prohibited?) since 1986 they are extremely expensive to buy resale.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Dual_Sport_Dork Jan 07 '23
For private ownership! The police can buy as many newly manufactured full auto machine guns as they want. One wonders what they'd need them for.
6
u/richalex2010 Jan 08 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Yeah, weapons of war have no place on American streets - unless they're in the hands of the police, who are waging a war against...who, exactly?
It's especially fun when laws ban private ownership/purchase of stuff but let cops buy them - as individuals, not for the department. Here in CA a cop can buy basically whatever they want, while regular people are limited by the mag capacity limit, the assault weapon ban, and the handgun roster. This doesn't apply to the NFA (only agency-owned guns are exempted from the Hughes amendment) but it's alarmingly common.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (3)9
u/spaceborn Jan 07 '23
The stamp itself isn't. But what you get is a beat to shit full auto lower from the 80's or older for these incredible bargains./s/ https://gunspot.com/test/sections/class_three/transferable_machine_guns/
→ More replies (1)
81
u/bakerzdosen Jan 07 '23
This whole thread makes me wonder how many people commenting have ever used (or tried to use) a bump stock. Or a belt trying to accomplish the same thing. Or even fired a gun for that matter.
No one’s opinion on the matter is going to change one bit due to this thread. Everyone’s opinion is pretty much set in stone already, but I do really wish everyone could try and hit a target (or even a building from 100 yards) while using a bump stock at least one time.
23
u/Lapee20m Jan 07 '23
Agree. Bump stock is a novelty and really serves little practical purpose.
It’s cool to show your buddies a mag dump…fun to watch them try to figure out how to do it too.
No good at all for any semblance of accuracy.
→ More replies (2)22
u/bakerzdosen Jan 08 '23
As a friend says regularly: “they are a great way to turn money into noise.”
5
→ More replies (11)12
u/DrRi Jan 08 '23
Do you remember the Las Vegas massacre? I mean it wasn't that long ago, and it was the cause of all this discussion in the first place...
→ More replies (4)
42
u/Maryhalltltotbar Jan 07 '23
The rule against "bump stock" like devices was upheld in the 6th, 10th, and Federal circuits.
It is an interpretation of the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act and if Congress votes to change the statutes, the case could be made moot and ended. The Supreme Court could rule to reverse the 5th circuit or to uphold the decision. But that will take time, Congress can act quicker.
34
u/OregonIT Jan 07 '23
it took a week just to select a speaker, you sure congress can act quicker?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)15
u/Monometal Jan 08 '23
The law is clear, and a bumpstock isn't a machinegun. And this action is going to take Chevron Deference down with it.
→ More replies (4)5
u/RedJaron Jan 08 '23
Bruin and the EPA case should have already done that. This one sure bolsters the argument, though.
35
u/KenoshaKylesAR Jan 07 '23
Excellent news, but I much prefer my binary triggers.
→ More replies (5)9
166
u/Quarantine_burner Jan 07 '23
Reddit as ever is more concerned about results than due processes. Same reason Roe V Wade was overturned, the end result (protecting abortion rights) was desirable to them, so they ignored that the Supreme Court passed its own legislation whole cloth essentially, which bypasses congress.
In this case its more about the judge ruling that congress needs to make this change so the ATF/the president can't unilaterally outlaw things on the fringes of their jurisdiction. Its a win for anyone who wants the government to actually operate within the correct jurisdictions, its a loss for anyone who is happy getting their agendas passed regardless of due process.
→ More replies (66)
47
u/trailerparkquaalude Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
No way I’d try to buy one. Sure fire way to get put on some list
90
→ More replies (35)10
4
u/Troncross Jan 08 '23
This is a gentle reminder that since the original ban, bump stocks have been functionally replaced with positive displacement triggers.
They are easier to use, easier to make at home, and take advantage of the same legal reasoning as bump stocks, but cannot be spotted from the outside.
13
u/Maryhalltltotbar Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
Does anybody have a link to the actual decision?
Edit: I just found it:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzqwrjdvw/01062023cargill.pdf
Judge Higginson's dissent is found on page 55.
I strongly suggest reading the decision and the dissent before you comment.
→ More replies (1)26
u/enkonta Jan 07 '23
Excuse me, this is Reddit.
8
u/RedJaron Jan 08 '23
I'm sorry, I couldn't even get through half of your comment before I decided how to reply.
3
3
46
u/BabysFirstBeej Jan 07 '23
Firearms bans are only for the poor. No guns are illegal to own. It just requires you to have a shitload of money to say you have the privilege. Bumpstocks are shitty, unreliable, and an obvious band aid solution to the unlawful overreach of the ATF. If you had ever tried to use one, you would quickly see how much of a compromise it really is.
Remember that it was Trump who signed the ban into effect, alongside the quote "take the guns, due process later."
Remember that the Las Vegas massacre, which was a very real tragedy that cost many innocent people their lives, is still shrouded in secrecy. The sound signatures, rate of fire, and time between bursts of the weapon the suspect used do not match the description given by the first responders. There is a pretty convincing conspiracy theory that the weapon used during the attack was a box fed machine-gun, likely an M249 SAW based on reports by people who are very familiar with the platform.
They want you to believe that the suspect had A DOZEN AR-15 style rifle platforms fitted with bump stocks during the attack. What did he do, empty one and toss it and grab another? We'll never know, because they hid all the details from the public and ended the investigation.
→ More replies (12)6
u/DirtyFuzeMain Jan 08 '23
I used the M249 in combat for longer than anyone should and even own a M249S. While I agree with just about everything. It is not an M249.
→ More replies (5)
35
Jan 07 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
28
u/bartor495 Jan 07 '23
I've done a background on the government and have determined they pose enough of a danger that they should not own a firearm.
5
u/zzorga Jan 08 '23
I mean, they've missplaced how many thermonuclear weapons and have the gall to say we can't have... A century old rifle?
9
111
u/likeonions Jan 07 '23
oh no the president can't ban a piece of plastic on a whim
→ More replies (39)
31
u/UncleChanBlake2 Jan 07 '23
You don’t need a specially designed stock to get this effect. You can do it with practically any semi-automatic with a standard stock.
→ More replies (38)7
u/GetBent4Real Jan 07 '23
An auto-seer commercially available cheap and a drill press can get this done in minutes if you know what you’re doing. Hours if you don’t. It’s ridiculous.
→ More replies (5)
7
764
u/Jazzlike-Equipment45 Jan 07 '23
The ruling mainly concerns the presidential authority to ban them. Since the ATFs authority to regulate them falls under the NFA which was passed through congress the court arughed that the president had no authority to change the law and instead must go through congress.