The ATF is accepting comments until January 25th on pending regulations that could ban bump stocks

GunOwnersAmerica.com – “The ATF is accepting comments from now until January 25th on pending regulations that could ban bump stocks HERE

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.”

CLICK HERE TO SPEAK UP NOW