• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

ATF seeking public opinion

John A.

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has requested comments concerning "bump fire stocks".

Gun Owners of America URGENTLY needs you to speak up by the January 25th deadline set by the ATF and help us incinerate this proposal before it even hits the House floor.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...stocks-and-other-similar-devices#open-comment

The proposal to ban bump stocks is nothing but a political game orchestrated by politicians like Nancy Pelosi. Most gun owners don’t even own bump stocks, but Pelosi knows that the second Republicans give her an inch, she’ll take a yard and stab them in the back.
This is a dangerous slippery slope that we absolutely cannot cross. This is exactly why Gun Owners of America has officially taken a no-compromise stance.
Our Constitution is clear. We have a right to bear arms. Period. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that if we start sacrificing our God-given freedoms for a false sense of security from a nanny-state government, we’ll be left with neither liberty nor security.
Every gun owner needs to realize that if the ATF can unilaterally ban bump stocks,THEY CAN BAN ANYTHING THEY WANT.
In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America
 
As crazy as Nancy Pelosi is, if she can get away with this she can get away with anything.

But the truth is she's on the outs here. She's become so much of an embarrassment that the party can't really even keep her on as a yes man.
 
I sure didn't like it when I read this part:

"You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web."
 
They already know who I am and where I live.
 
Submitted the following 2-fer... ;) Short and sweet, yet complete.

"I do NOT agree that a "bump fire" stock or similar devices should be classified or defined as a "machinegun".

I also believe that firearm noise suppressors should be removed from the same classification as a machine gun."

PS: I don't know if my comment was "accepted" as I keep getting an error message...

UPDATE: This LINK worked better for me but was a little slow, so be patient. You can also select "anonymous" for your name...
 
Last edited:
Here is what I wrote:

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
"machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
 
Entire video is pretty good and with behind the scenes commentary. Especially pay attention to 10:55 to 12:30

36:00 to 40:00

 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link John, I put my opinion in. I thought about just copying your response verbatim. Instead phrased it in layman's terms.
 
Not sure which antigun group has given so many a pre-written form, but this is what many of the responses say:

On the night of October 1st, 2017, a gunman opened fire from a hotel room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel into the 22,000 person crowd at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500. The gunman fired more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition in 11 minutes, using semi-automatic rifles modified with a dangerous firearm accessory designed to dramatically accelerate the rate of gunfire, commonly known as bump fire stocks. These devices are intended to circumvent the restrictions on possession of fully automatic firearms in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 by allowing an individual to modify a semiautomatic rifle in such a manner that it operates with a similar rate of fire as a fully automatic rifle. While often marketed as a novelty item for recreational shooters, bump stocks and similar devices that accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm are extremely dangerous and pose a substantial risk to public safety.
To fully protect American communities from another mass shooting on the devastating scale of Las Vegas, Congress must act to ban bump stocks and other similar firearm devices or accessories. In the absence of action by Congress, ATF should issue a new rule clarifying that the definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act of 1934 includes conversion devices like bump fire stocks that convert a semi-automatic rifle into the functional equivalent of a fully automatic rifle. In creating this rule, ATF must take into account the toll of gun violence on communities like Las Vegas, in terms of injuries, loss of life, and the financial loss to businesses in the communities that are affected. The continued presence of these dangerous devices poses a continuing threat to all of our communities and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat to public.
-----------------------

Just for the record, while I sent in my comment, looks like the antigunners are in a position to maybe win this round due to complacency and shear laziness of gun owners judging from the number of antigun comments to progun if you don't get off your butt and say something. You have 2 days left.
 
I commented. There are far fewer pro-gun people than non-gun people in that list. The scare tactic "all guns should be banned" or "ban anything semi automatic as its a tool of war" - well, why are there not mass shootings every day then? there are millions of guns in the US with billions of rounds of ammunition, and we don't have wars and mass shooting every day... Because most people are responsible.
 
Here's the biggest lie in the whole business:

"To fully protect American communities from another mass shooting on the devastating scale of Las Vegas, Congress must act"

Congress cannot fully protect anybody from anything, including protecting themselves (and they have the finest security systems in the world don't they?) And yet lunatic shooters were able to take out politicians even in just the recent past.
 
It took me a long time to do this but it did not take me very long to compose.

This was my comment:

The fact that any particular device or method has been used by a lunatic or an evil-doer does not alone constitute grounds for regulation (even when it has been used to great effect) unless a pattern of such criminal usage can be established across the population.
We may not preemptively restrict items due to a popular irrational fear, or a public misperception, but must first prove conclusively the need for any such abridgement or usurpation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top