Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban

"As noted above, a part or parts designed and intended to convert a weapon into a
machinegun, i.e., a weapon that will shoot automatically more than one shot, without
manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is a machinegun under the NFA and
GCA. ATF has determined that the device constitutes a machinegun under the NFA and
GCA. This determination is consistent with the legislative history of the National
Firearms Act in which the drafters equated “single function of the trigger” with “single
pull of the trigger.” See, e.g., National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Comm. on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Second Session on H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., at
40 (1934). Accordingly, conversion parts that, when installed in a semiautomatic rifle,
result in a weapon that shoots more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
pull of the trigger, are a machinegun as defined in the National Firearms Act and the Gun
Control Act."

https://www.atf.gov/file/55391/download

 

Not sure what about my post you disagree with.

A bumpstock consists solely of a piece of hard plastic and has no mechanical parts whatsoever. It does not in any way modify the mechanical function of the gun, and is not machine aided in any manner (it has no springs, etc.). You can make a crude version of it out of a 2x4 and wind up with something that works for most guns.

Literally all it does is force you to hold the gun in a way where, if you are applying forward pressure to the foregrip, it is difficult not to repeatedly actuate the trigger.

 

No one doubts that’s what ATF wrote. This lawsuit is focused on the fact that, unless you either don’t understand or completely gloss over how a bumpstock works, it doesn’t meet even that definition.

ATF walks through a relatively reasonable argument that a “function of the trigger” means either a pull or (not relevant here) release of the trigger - something most people generally agree with - but then concludes that a bumpstock is a machinegun because it results in firing multiple shots not with one pull or release of the trigger, but instead from one pull of the trigger finger.

 

I don’t personally care whether bumpstocks are legal or not - I didn’t own one when they were legal, and I wouldn’t buy one if they became legal again.

Gun folks are backing this one because it happens to be the fight at hand that presents the opportunity to reign in ATF just making stuff up as they go and doing complete 180s on things at whim without much regard at all to what the statutes they are supposed to enforce actually say. They’re one of the poster children for administrative agencies run amok if you can get anyone to pay attention to what they’re actually doing and what the supposed legal support for those actions are rather than just saying “well that sounds bad, good job banning it.”

 

It's the same technicality you've been arguing this whole time. Yes, the bump stock allows you to essentially mimic an automatic weapon (and that's exactly what a person buying one is purchasing it to do). But it doesn't count because if you interpret the statute really narrowly and reject the common-sense understanding (imo), you get your loophole.

I gave you a disagree because I understand your argument, I don't agree with it, and I don't see a point in going in continuing to go in circles. I'm arguing substance. You're arguing form. Either one of us can accuse the other of doing it out of convenience. Either way, nothing is going to be gained. I hope you enjoy the rest of your night, Ben.

 

I gotcha.

I just don’t think it’s a particularly narrow reading - in addition to the discussion we’ve had upthread, it’s the only one that gives any meaning to the word “automatically” in the definition (to answer your question to Helix upthread, that’s what introduces the concept of mechanical function to the definition).

The “substance” argument ignores that Congress defined a pretty technically specific kind of function as being a machinegun, and instead interprets it as meaning “a machinegun, or anything that similarly shoots really, really fast” - ignoring that Congress itself crafted a definition that didn’t include some guns that existed and were well known at the time and which fire even faster than many machineguns (ie, the Gatling gun, which had been around since the 1860s).

 

Perhaps bump stocks wouldn’t be a problem if people paid for a tax stamp the way they have to do to buy a machine gun, perfectly legally.

 

I hear this kind of stuff yet this court hasnt followed the company lines to the extreme that many here go on and on about.

 

By that argument, would a device that fits around the stock of the gun and, with one action of a person's finger, starts mechanically pulling the trigger over not be a machine gun?

 

If it mechanically does it, I think there’s a pretty good argument that it is a machinegun within the statutory definition - that’s been ATF’s consistent interpretation and no one particularly challenges it (ATF’s interpretation there has tended to focus on the word “automatically” in the definition and the assertion that if there is something else added to the gun that you act on to start the firing sequence, that becomes the new trigger).

Essentially the way ATF has interpreted “automatic trigger-puller” type devices is to say that they are modifying the mechanical function of the gun and whatever button/lever/switch/etc. you use to activate the trigger-puller becomes the new trigger. That’s the basis for why ATF’s tech division has determined that the “robot hand” type shooting glove (don’t remember the exact name, but it was essentially a glove with a robot finger and if you held down a button the robot finger would move back and forth really fast) was a machinegun when attached to a firearm, and why they say that a mini-gun is a machinegun but a Gatling gun isn’t (for crank-fired weapons the crank is considered the trigger, hand cranked ones aren’t machineguns because manual turns of the crank are separate functions, but if you attach an electric motor to turn the crank the button that turns the motor on becomes the trigger).

The trouble with trying to apply that logic to bumpstocks is that they don’t modify the existing function of the gun, aren’t adding anything else to the firing sequence, and have no mechanical parts - they’re just making you hold the gun in an unnatural way where you are very likely to bump your finger on and off the trigger really fast.

 

It's a wonder everybody doesn't have a machinegun if all you have to do is pay for a tax stamp. I have bought a bunch of stamps in my life. It's so easy.

 

Cool thread, thanks.

 

That (paying $200 for a tax stamp) is pretty much all you have to do. That and pay a very large amount of money to purchase one from another citizen and wait 9-12 months or more for the ATF to process your form 4 and run a NICS check. A friend of mine has a pre-86 AR-15 lower receiver that cost him about $8k back in the 90s, but those things go for $30k+ these days because there are only around 175k pre-86 transferable machine guns on the registry and that number will only get smaller over time.

 

What part of the statute draws a distinction between "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" automatic trigger-pulling attachments, though?

And what do you mean by "mechanical"? My understanding is that all guns work through what is essentially the application of classical mechanics to the various parts. I.e.--physical forces pushing components around to create a designed result.

How does the fact that a bump stock incorporates a human finger in the reaction sequence make a material difference? It certainly would if it required a human decision to pull the trigger again or not, because then it's not just a predictable outcome of physical forces, but actual intent. But it seems to me that's not what is occurring. The bump stock essentially makes the finger part of the machine. And if that's the case, I'm not sure why we should read it out of the definition. Organic component or inanimate rod, it still creates automatic fire following a single activation of the trigger.

 

Here is the actual definition of a machine gun from the NFA:

the "automatically more than one shot" is the part that distinguishes mechanical vs non-mechanical. The alternative to automatically is manually, which would describe every single semi-automatic firearm in existence.

A bump stock does not produce multiple shots ("automatic fire") simply by actioning the trigger of the gun with the stationary finger. It requires additional manual action by the shooter (pushing the fore grip forward enough but not too much) to discharge additional shots, and must be done repeatedly. It's just easier to move a hand gripping a fore grip forward and back rapidly using your arm as a spring than it is a finger, but that does not change that it is a manual action. Again you can do the exact same thing with a belt loop or any other number of ways to hold a finger stationary. Tape and a popsicle stick, etc.

The statute defines machine gun in pretty specific mechanical terms, and a bump stock does not meet that definition without an outcome that results in either all semi-automatic firearms being defined as a machine gun or ignoring the common understanding of the words in the text as it has existed since 1934 to produce a desired outcome. As @GatorBen has said and I agree with, I frankly don't care if bump stocks are legal. I haven't owned one and don't plan to even if this is overturned. Allowing this rule to stand, however, opens the door for ATF overreach in other areas that are much more concerning, however, such as the frame/receiver rule, agency policy about what constitutes being "in the business" for the purposes of private sales of firearms, and the pistol brace rule.

 

The word “automatically” is what’s making the difference.

A bump stock is not automatically doing anything - if you hold the trigger down, without you doing more, it will fire a single shot. The physical force that resets the trigger group with a bumpstock isn’t anything within the gun or firing sequence, it’s your left arm (assuming you’re a right-handed shooter). And I’m distinguishing mechanical from biomechanical - the key thing that makes a bumpstock work is not any force generated by the gun, the ammunition, or even a machine, it’s what your arm is doing.

Said differently, a bumpstock doesn’t create automatic fire following a single activation of the trigger. It makes you hold the gun in a weird way where it’s very easy to repeatedly activate the trigger, but holding a gun loosely and shaking it around so the trigger bounces off your finger isn’t automatic fire.

The problem with trying to define a firing sequence including human body parts as a machinegun is two-fold: one, it isn’t automatic; two, if you just gloss over the automatic word, you wind up with the nonsense result that human body parts are illegal machinegun conversion parts, because trying to describe the firing sequence of a bumpstock in a way that is “automatic” would require you to accept the idea that your trigger finger is an auto-sear and your support arm is a short stroke gas piston.

 

Does a bump stock require you to shake the gun around loosely so it hits your finger? My impression was that it pushed the trigger into your finger repeatedly via recoil.

Re "automatic," if its mechanism of action is basic physical forces like recoil working in a designed way to produce a stream of fire without conscious thought, I don't think it much matters that those forces are working on a human body part as opposed to anything else.

Maybe you could argue that for a bump stock to work, it still requires you to apply continuous pressure to certain areas of the gun, and therefore isn't functioning entirely on its own. But then again, a typical machine gun usually requires you to apply continuous pressure by holding down the trigger (and other parts, to prevent it from flying out of your hands), which doesn't strike me as all that different.

I guess we'll see.

 

Basically, it's expensive, inconvenient, and difficult to get them (because of the laws in place). Hence, why people would rather buy a semi-automatic weapon and use a bump stock.