The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plans to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking next week on the interpretation of how a machine gun is defined and how of bump fire stocks and similar devices aline with it.
Set to officially publish to the Federal Register the day after Christmas, the 13-page ANPRM as it stands would open a 30-day window for comments on the subject from the public.
Noting that when the National Firearms Act was established in 1934 — regulating machine gun ownership, possession and use — there were just a “handful” of guns classified as machine guns in circulation, the agency goes on to say that times have changed. Since the use of bump stocks in a shooting in Las Vegas in October that left 58 dead, the ATF has received calls from both the public and Congress to examine past classifications of bump stock devices.
“This ANPRM is the initial step in a regulatory process to interpret the definition of machine gun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition,” says the agency. “If, in a subsequent rulemaking, the definition of machine gun under section 5845 (b) is interpreted to include certain bump stock devices, ATF would then have a basis to re-examine its prior classification and rulings.”
To move toward examining a rule change, regulators want feedback from consumers as to what their experience is with how bump stocks are used and marketed and the prices they have encountered. From manufacturers and retailers of bump stocks, the ATF wants to know how many they have sold, how they were marketed and what would they expect to happen to their business and inventory if they were reclassified as machine guns.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this month announced a review of federal law to determine if certain bump stock devices fall within the definition of “machine gun” and falls in line with calls from the National Rifle Association and others to take a second look at the now-controversial attachments.
The ATF deemed bump stock devices as accessories rather than a machine gun in 2010 after manufacturer Slide Fire voluntarily submitted their product to federal regulators for review. Officials said they cleared the device because it “performs no automatic mechanical function when installed” and the shooter must still apply “constant” forward and rearward pressure to the trigger and those associated with that call have defended the ruling.
ATF Seeks Input on 'Application of the
Definition of Machinegun to 'Bump Fire' Stocks and Other Similar Devices'
Following the
October mass shooting incident in Las Vegas, the National Shooting Sports
Foundation (NSSF) called for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) to review its definition of “machine gun” and whether bump
fire stocks should be covered under the definition and related regulations.
The Justice
Department has announced that it will be reviewing this question. In an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM), the Department said ATF will interpret
the statutory definition of “machine gun” in the National Firearms Act and
Gun Control Act to clarify whether bump fire stocks fall within the
definition. The ANPRM is intended as an initial step in a regulatory
process to gather information regarding the scope and nature of the market
for these devices. While this step is not proposing a change to current
regulations, ATF notes, “If, in a subsequent rulemaking, the definition of
machinegun under section 5845(b) is interpreted to include certain bump
stock devices, ATF would then have a basis to re-examine its prior
classification and rulings. See Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct.
2117, 2125 (2016); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515
(2009).”
NSSF will prepare
comments on behalf of the industry ahead of the Jan. 25, 2018 deadline. If
you have feedback to provide on the following list of questions included in
the ANPRM, please contact Larry Keane at lkeane@nssf.org.
NSSF will compile all input received from our members for use in our industry
comment letter.
Manufacturers
Are you, or have
you been, involved in the manufacturing of bump stock devices? If so:
1. In what part(s)
of the manufacturing process, are/were you involved?
2. In what
calendar years are/were you involved in the manufacturing process?
3. What is the
wholesale price of the bump stock devices produced by the manufacturing
process with which you are involved?
4. In each
calendar year in which you have operated, how many bump stock devices were
produced by the manufacturing process with which you are/were involved? Of
this number, how many devices were sold to (a) retailers/resellers, and (b)
directly to consumers?
5. What were your
approximate gross receipts for the sale of these bump stock devices in each
calendar year (from 2014—present)?
6. For what use or
uses have you marketed bump stock devices?
7. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what
would you expect to be the impact on your gross receipts for calendar year
2018?
8. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what
other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable
inventory)?
9. What costs do
you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock
device inventory?
10. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you
believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or
military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and
your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.
Retailers
Are you, or have
you been, involved in the retail sale of bump stock devices? If so:
11. In what
calendar years are/were you involved?
12. In each
calendar year, how many bump stock devices did you sell?
13. In each
calendar year, what was the average retail price of the bump stock devices
you sold?Start Printed Page 60931
14. In each
calendar year (from 2014—present) what were your approximate gross receipts
derived from the retail sale of bump stock devices?
15. For what use
or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?
16. In the 2018
calendar year, how many bump stock devices do you anticipate you will sell,
assuming that such devices remain classified by ATF as an unregulated
firearm part? What do you expect will be the average price at which those
bump stock devices will be sold?
17. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what
would you expect to be the impact on your costs/expenses, gross receipts
for calendar year 2018?
18. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what
other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable
inventory)?
19. What costs do
you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock
device inventory?
20. If ATF
classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of
1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you
believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or
military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and
your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.
Consumers
21. In your
experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these
has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these
devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or
similar events; or private sales between individuals)?
22. Based on your
experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these
devices?
23. For what
purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?
Lawmakers in Delaware, New Jersey, and South Carolina among others are gaining ground on measures to regulate bump stock devices.
On Tuesday, the Columbia City Council voted to ban the attachment of bump stocks to firearms inside that South Carolina city’s limits, though the measure does not bar possession of the devices themselves. Requested by Mayor Steve Benjamin, the text of the ban recognizes that the city cannot violate South Carolina’s strong laws against counties and towns regulating guns or ammunition, but argues that bump stocks and trigger cranks are outside the scope of the state’s preemption. Violations are a misdemeanor carrying up to 30 days in the city jail and a $500 fine.
“We’re hoping and praying that we can make one small step here that might inform our state legislature to act and make ownership of bump stocks a felony in South Carolina,” Benjamin told local media. “We hope this inspires other city and states and hope for the federal government to act as well.”
Columbia is not the first city to put a target on the controversial accessories which mimic full-auto fire. In October, city officials in Tucson passed a resolution asking Arizona lawmakers to consider a statewide prohibition on bump stocks after the city attorney cautioned they can’t legally pass their own local ban due to preemption laws in that state.
Delaware
Last week, House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst, D-Bear, introduced House Bill 300 which aims to make it a Class E felony in the state to buy, sell, transfer or possess a “trigger crank, bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”
Under state guidelines, the language of the measure would open violators to as much as five years in prison, and no provision is given to grandfather those with existing stocks.
“Fully automatic firearms are still illegal, and devices like bump stocks that basically convert semiautomatic weapons into automatic ones should be outlawed,” Bear said in a statement. “Residents and families have every right to protect their lives and property, but the only reason to own a device like this is to fire hundreds of rounds per minute.”
The measure has 14 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Administration Committee with chamber Democrats running video ads on social media citing the use of the devices in October’s Route 91 Harvest festival shooting in Las Vegas.
New Jersey
Also citing the Las Vegas event as the impetus to pass S.3477 in the New Jersey Senate, Democrats argue the devices have no purpose.
“There is no legitimate use for these devices other than to increase the killing power of the weapons they are designed for,” said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, in a statement. “No single law can prevent all the gun violence, but we need to use the tragic lessons of these cases to make our communities safer.”
The Senate measure passed out of committee on Monday and mimics an Assembly bill which got a corresponding approval last month to make the sale or possession of bump stocks or trigger cranks a third-degree criminal offense in New Jersey. The bills modify state law so that a firearm affixed to a bump stock constitutes an “assault weapon” while a firearm affixed with a trigger crank constitutes a machine gun. Violations are a felony that carries $10,000 in potential fines and can result in as much as five years in prison.
However, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the state’s NRA affiliate, contend the move goes after something that is already banned in the state under a combination of existing laws.
Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican with a long history of scuttling Democrat-backed gun control moves, has signaled he would support a ban on bump stocks.
The only state to prohibit the devices post-Las Vegas has been Massachusetts, where Republican Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito last month signed a proposal adding definitions to state law of “Bump stock” and “Trigger Crank,” regulating each in turn. The new law allows for penalties to run from 18 months to life in prison for those selling or possessing the devices. Further, it does not provide a pathway to legal ownership of the accessories already in circulation.
California and New York already prohibit the devices while similar legislation is underway at the state level in Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington. At least four federal bills have been filed on Capitol Hill ranging from measures to add bump stocks to National Firearms Act control — in effect regulating them like machine guns — to outright bans. The only measure to make it out of committee, H.R.38, the national concealed carry reciprocity bill, contains language ordering the Department of Justice to examine the use of bump stocks in crime and report to Congress on their findings.
What It’s Like to Live in a State Hostile to Gun Owners
USA-(Ammoland.com)- With the election of President Donald Trump, many gun owners breathed a sigh of relief, that we dodged a bullet so to speak of having someone in charge of the executive branch that was in favor of new and stricter gun laws.
We blocked someone who could have changed the balance of power within the US Supreme Court for the next several decades. After that narrow 5-4 Heller decision, where we were a single vote away from possibly losing the 2nd Amendment forever. But what of those who live in states where no matter who runs Washington, that our rights are under fire from a constant barrage of legislation that continues to strip down what the Founding Fathers gave us?
I have lived in the state of New York my whole life, and for those who have never been here or seen it, New York City is only a small part, but the politics there influence the whole state. This state has not always been the rotten cesspool you see it as now, and it was at the heart of many of the most pivotal battles of the American Revolution and before that, the French & Indian War.
If it weren’t for some of the engagements during that conflict, the British might have never stayed on this continent, and we could all be speaking French. Later during the War of 1812, there was the Battle of Plattsburgh, with dueling engagements, one on water and one on land, where American forces repelled a British invasion and effectively ended any attempt by that nation to enter this country from the north.
New York has always had a rich tradition of hunting and the outdoors with the Adirondack and the Catskill Mountains, and lots of farmland in between and all the way to the Ohio, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Canadian borders. This state has not always been the liberal bastion it is now turned itself into.
So what happened? Very simply put this state turned blue because of its large urban population centers.
There are nineteen million people living here, and eight million of those live in New York City alone, but there are only five million registered Democrats.
The problem is, there are less than three million registered Republicans according to the last census. There have been decades of one area of the state ruling over the rest of the state country only by the weight of numbers. Each governor that has been elected has been more liberal than the last, with our current ruler, Andrew Cuomo lording over the Empire State (a more apt name cannot be given to it).
I started owning guns in 1994, and at that time the majority of the laws here were not that strict before that unless you lived in New York City where crime at that point was running rampant before Rudy Guiliani being elected as Mayor and is again thanks to the current chief executive there.
For instance, a permit to carry a handgun in the state of New York is not valid in New York City, which since the state government isn’t even located there is staggering, telling you how much political pull one city has to override state law by keeping honest citizens from exercising their rights.
People might be asking, why not move out of state? Many can, but many cannot. For those of us with jobs, careers, families, and responsibilities and maybe years and decades away from being able to retire, moving away is not as easy as it sounds. Sure if you’re fresh out of high school or college, that’s an easier choice, but not so easy for rest of us.
Battle of Plattsburgh
The other option is to fight back through the ballot box. When Governor Cuomo rammed through his Safe Act, there was immediate anger and pushback on all sides. Many county sheriffs stated that they would not have their officers enforce parts of it, residents sued after being arrested for something that only before the signing of that law was perfectly legal.
Something as simple as having ten rounds in a ten round magazine that you could still legally own would guarantee you a trip to the county lockup. The one positive thing that came out of the Safe Act, it unified gun owners as nothing has ever done in this state.
There have been small victories, for instance, we can have ten rounds in our ten round magazine again, there are New York compliant AR rifles although they are neutered versions of their former selves. Also, the planned background check on ammunition appears to be dead since the idea was never actually thought out when the law was passed.
The SAFE ACT also brought out people who have never voted before. When Andrew Cuomo ran for re-election in 2014, he won by one of the smallest margins in state history, winning with sixteen out of sixty-two counties, but of course, most of that was the New York City area and the other population centers.
One of the other reasons why New York is the way it is, the Republican leadership, for the most part, is as bad as the Democrats when it comes to politics. When the Safe Act was passed, it did so because of many of the Senate Republicans, including Dean Skelos, [who was once convicted of Corruption] the former Majority Leader of the State Senate, voted in favor of it. In the end, nine Republicans voted in favor of the Safe Act despite pleas and calls from their constituents telling them to oppose it.
All across the state of New York, county after county voted to oppose the Safe Act, with only a handful voting for it. The Governor did not care, the Democrats in power did not care, they passed a law that many still to this day oppose.
So what can those of us here behind enemy lines do?
We can demand better representation from our leaders. There’s a groundswell in the country right now of ordinary people who are tired of their choices, whether it’s state or federal.
Safe Act Stance
As a citizen, you need to register to vote, and you need to vote for the candidate that will do the job he or she says. If not, they need to be replaced, and those running for office need to know that.
The one thing many gun owners here will say is that they feel like they have been abandoned. I know many former NRA members who will no longer pay money when they feel like they have been left out in the cold, which has led to the rise of organizations here like S.C.O.P.E., small in stature but fiercely fighting for gun owners when they can. Gun owners need hope; they need a reason to get out and vote.
We need candidates who don’t just give out the “You can’t fight New York City” line and just go along to get their paycheck and pension. We need someone to run for governor who can find upstate and northern New York without having to look for it on a map or who has been north of Albany more than once or twice in their lives.
I feel for those in other states like mine (NJ, CA) who have no problem stripping the rights away from gun owners. Right now Andrew Cuomo is proposing a new law where gun owners who are arrested for domestic violence lose their firearms, permanently.
This new law would mean confiscation, something he had advocated for all along when the Safe Act was first announced. All gun owners here in this state need to oppose it. But gun owners in every state where they are living under the thumb of elected officials who would with the stroke of a pen strip their right to defend themselves all the while they enjoy armed security, need to organize, Get out the facts, register to vote and then make sure on election day they’re pulling that lever.
I would also tell those who live in states where gun rights are not so restrictive, don’t get complacent. Our rights here were not in danger overnight. We didn’t start off this way, politicians snuck in like a fox in a henhouse and started taking them one by one.
Mocking us here by saying we elected stupid leaders are only partially true, some of us are fighting back, some of us want to enjoy where we live, raise our kids and have grown up. That’s what its like to be in occupied territory.
About David LaPell:
David LaPell has been a Corrections Officer with the local Sheriff's Department for thirteen years. A collector of antique and vintage firearms for over twenty years and an avid hunter. David has been writing articles about firearms, hunting and western history for ten years. In addition to having a passion for vintage guns, he is also a fan of old trucks and has written articles on those as well.
Singer Nancy Sinatra on Thursday called for members of the National Rifle Association to be killed by firing squad.
Sinatra—the daughter of legendary crooner Frank Sinatra—shared the sentiment on Twitter following the murder of 59 people in Las Vegas by a mass shooter over the weekend.
In 2013, the NRA estimated it had five million members. When another Twitter user asked Sinatra to explain why she thought every NRA member should be killed, Sinatra did not challenge the interpretation of her remarks.
