Trump done sold us out (big surprise there).

[WARFAB]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

From both a practical (Molon Labe) and legal (Heller) standpoint, saying every AR lower is now a machinegun isn't going to fly. The courts will either force the ATF/DOJ to clarify things somehow, or this reclassification will become a crack in the NFA.

The law of unintended consequences says if there is no longer a legal difference between a 2 hole and 3 hole receiver, might as well just drill the third hole. People are already refusing to turn in bump stocks. It is possible for the ATF to bite off more than it can chew.

[Norm DeGuerre]

New Year's eve reading:

By NFA and GCA definition (26 U.S.C. 584(b)), "The term "machinegun" also includes "the frame or receiver of any such weapon" or any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended "for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun," and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. "

This is an angle I hadn't considered before, and I'm not sure if it will work for or against gun owners in legal challenges. Previously, three hole lower receivers were illegal because they fell under the above definition of a "macinegun". If bump stocks turn an AR15 into a "machinegun", then that means technically any ordinary 2 hole receiver is now just as illegal as a 3 hole receiver.

Great conceptual thinking .☺️

[WARFAB]

In other news, all this time I've always thought that a bump stock has a spring in it that pushes the rifle back forward after recoil. Akins v. United States already declared such devices that include a spring to be illegal. This recent DOJ RIN 1140-AA52 description of the rule change repeatedly describes a bump stock as a device that "....harness(es) the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."

A: The trigger is being manipulated repeatedly by the shooter.

B: I know legal language is not necessarily scientific language, but under what definition of the words involved does a device that lacks a spring "harness" energy in any way? Unless I am completely misunderstanding how a bump stock works, it is the shooter's support arm pushing forward that counters the recoil force. The bump stock itself has no way to "harness energy" without a spring of some sort.

Side note: Now I want to go back and look at the crime scene photos from the hotel in Vegas. I thought I recall at least a few if the rifles having bipod.

Edit: This objection/concern was brought up in about 17,000 comments during the NPRM period. The ATFs dismissal of these comments is an illogical word salad circle that seems to ignore the definitions of common words or possibly redefine them. They say one thing, then literally three paragraphs later they contradict themselves.

[WARFAB]

Skimming through the ATF responses to the comments and concerns submitted to the original NPRM are somewhat irritating. A lot of the responses are basically "yeah, your concern is valid, but we're the government and we can do this".

Never mind the fact that not so long ago the ATF specifically said that they can't do this.

And oh yeah, some of the concerns submitted were that doing an about-face on bump stocks would hurt the ATF's credibility. 'Doh!

[WARFAB]