BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Locked
User avatar

spectre
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#46

Post by spectre »

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?
I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.
If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though. :thumbs2:
I'm in a good place right now
Not emotionally or financially
But I am at the gun store

Topic author
MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#47

Post by MechAg94 »

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.
The way I read the proposed rule, the rule would simply redefine bump stocks as machine guns and they would be illegal. So no grandfather clause, just declaring them illegal.
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6281
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#48

Post by Paladin »

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Does anyone know the timeline on these types of rules? Apparently, we have until the end of June to submit comments, which will need to be read, considered, and possibly responded to. Then a final rule would need to be issued, and a timeline established for turning your newly defined "machine gun" in to the government, destroying it, or otherwise disposing of it.

Putting aside the possibility of a court ordered injunction until litigation has run it's course, what kind of time frame are we looking at before it becomes illegal to have a "bump stock" in your possession?

I realize this might not be an exact science. Just looking for a rough estimate.
The more comments, the longer this will take them. Strong, logical objections would push them to modify the rule's language or drop the proposed rule all together.
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, FPC, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#49

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

spectre wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?
I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.
If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though. :thumbs2:
Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.

Topic author
MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1584
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#50

Post by MechAg94 »

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.
I agree a lawsuit challenging this would be a good thing. I don't think the NRA will do it. I am not sure about other groups.

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#51

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

MechAg94 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.
I agree a lawsuit challenging this would be a good thing. I don't think the NRA will do it. I am not sure about other groups.
I'm thinking class action lawsuit maybe? There would be a ton of potential damages just from the loss of value to current owners of this "machine gun".

ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#52

Post by ninjabread »

spectre wrote:If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.
Let's not forget BATF rulings 94-1 and 94-2 which made some 12ga shotguns "destructive devices" retroactively.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#53

Post by bblhd672 »

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/923-pa ... z5JjxpwQDJ

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf- ... -stock-ban.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#54

Post by bblhd672 »

COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON ATF’S PROPOSED RULE

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre ... ntType=pdf
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#55

Post by KLB »

rotor wrote: Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:01 pmI don't think they can call that eminent domain.
I would call it a regulatory taking, but this is not my area of the law. I cannot predict whether such an argument might succeed.
User avatar

deplorable
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:06 am

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#56

Post by deplorable »

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:36 am
deplorable wrote:
At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.
You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.
But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.
Not unless you're required to turn it in without compensation. If you have the option to modify it to comply with the law, there's no taking.

I agree the ATF has no business violating any laws at all, but they're part of the deep state and they routinely violate laws and get away with it, just like the FBI.
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#57

Post by mojo84 »

Trump just said a few minutes ago he and his admin are just a couple weeks away from being able to "get rid of " and ban bump stocks. If you want one, you better get it now. Now sure if they will be grandfathered or not.

The comments came a few minutes ago when he was discussing the new revised trade deal with Mexico and Canada on Fox News. Will post a link when I find it.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#58

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

mojo84 wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:57 pm Trump just said a few minutes ago he and his admin are just a couple weeks away from being able to "get rid of " and ban bump stocks. If you want one, you better get it now. Now sure if they will be grandfathered or not.

The comments came a few minutes ago when he was discussing the new revised trade deal with Mexico and Canada on Fox News. Will post a link when I find it.
The current rule does not have a grandfathering clause. So you will be risking your money if you buy one now. Of course, you may make a sizeable profit if you own one and they are grandfathered. This is a classic speculative investment situation.

Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to take too much more of our property in the future. I kind of like most of my stuff. It sure would be nice to get a conservative in the white house at some point.
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6281
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#59

Post by Paladin »

JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, FPC, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: BATFE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices: Notice of proposed rulemaking

#60

Post by Flightmare »

Paladin wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:02 am Final Rule
This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
How long until some manufacturer reads this as a loophole and creates a harness type device that mounts to the shoulder, not the firearm?
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
Locked

Return to “Federal”