• 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.

Saturday Morning Government gun ban

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
In a rare move, and probably intended to fly under the radar, I saw a little news article by Reuters a few minutes ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-regulation-to-ban-bump-stocks-idUSKCN1GM0JN

Here is a little gem that was in it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice formally submitted a regulation on Saturday to ban “bump stocks,” a modification to high-capacity rifles that lets them fire like an automatic weapon.

which must now be approved by the Office of Management and Budget before it is published and subject to a commentary period.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
Enacting legislation on weekends is similar to felons who do their criminal business after Dark.

It's a cowardly act, and our government should be called out for this stuff.

The government doesn't want us to know what laws they're passing or when they're passing them or what the laws actually are.

It's the sort of Catch-22 entrapment embodied in the business about "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I've been in a law library, and no one man knows the law.

It's like engineering. Every lawyer has their specialties and they don't normally practice outside them because it could be a case of incompetence.


I read this on a pro 2a site and I thought it particularly revealing:

"Any background-check legislation should include a provision whereby people can review their firearms eligibility or disability status—and correct any defects in their record—before unknowingly participating in an unlawful purchase or transfer."

As far as I know, right now you have no access to that information. Americans have no right to knowledge of what data the government has collected about them.

And because the government changes the laws at midnight on Saturday when you go to buy a gun you may not realize that you have overnight become a prohibited person.

You will pay a fee and fill out a bunch of paperwork and wait for nothing except frustration, and for all your troubles and wasted cash, you may find a agent knocking on your door to find out why a former Marine with a disabling leg injury feels the need to own evil military style weapons.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
I see a couple of courses this is going to take.

At this time without having seen the new "administrative regulation", it's usually not wise to speculate and I am going to refrain from it. They have to publish it eventually. And if I read the article correctly, accept public comment.

However, this may well create a constitutional dilemma.

To classify something one way, and then to turn around and classify it in an alternate manner, is problematic at best.

Outright banning will violate 5A rights in where the government cannot seize lawfully owned property without compensation. And creating felons from people who lawfully purchased them will surely be contested in court.

On another note, the attorney general may open a short amnesty period to the NFA to allow anyone who has one to register them. They could also waive the tax since the government was the one who ultimately changed the classification and created the impasse. In my opinion, that is ultimately what should occur.

Again, I'm going to refrain from comment until the government agency actually releases the new regulation.

I am not a fan of any government agency being able to make a regulation that bypasses congress and is accepted with the force of law.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
Judging by the date of this being in December, I am uncertain if the regulation that was submitted is the same, but I expect that if it's not, probably isn't too far from it.

You guys need to read it. If for nothing else, than to see what the precedent that's being set.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...to-bump-fire-stocks-and-other-similar-devices

A few snips:

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:
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depa...otice-proposed-regulation-banning-bump-stocks


Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Department of Justice Submits Notice of Proposed Regulation Banning Bump Stocks
Today the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the definition of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock type devices, and that federal law accordingly prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of such devices.

"President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “To that end, the Department of Justice has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a notice of a proposed regulation to clarify that the National Firearms and Gun Control Act defines ‘machinegun’ to include bump stock type devices.”

This submission is a formal requirement of the regulatory review process. Once approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice will seek to publish this notice as expeditiously as possible.
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Press Release Number:
18 - 291
 

carbinemike

Global Moderator
Staff member
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
I think what really ticks me off about a reclassification is that they will now say that a semi automatic with one pull of the trigger for each shot fired is an automatic rifle when equipped with a bump stock. Could they not then say roll that farther for a ban on semi automatic rifles since you can do they same thing with a string etc? We can't ban string so we will ban the rifle. Trump is leading us to a slippery slope. The only thing I see that he will propose that may help is armed teachers/school guards.

I'll listen to what he says but he is rapidly losing me. They had a year to ram reciprocity through and that's dead. I really don't trust the republicans on guns either. I think what happened in Florida with Rick Scott and Marco Rubio shows just how fast republicans can and will turn on the 2nd amendment. PA has been hanging in there but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a school shooting here that AR-15's etc would be banned in the blink of an eye.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
There's a bunch of dems in my state that their constituency is around the major metro areas like Louisville and Lexington, where crime is on the rise due to drugs and the decidedly dem leadership that propose BS laws too, but the people in my corner of the state would turn up their nose even if they did get them signed into laws.

As for the slippery slope, those days are long behind us I believe. It's more like the Olympic downhill bobsled races these days.

I don't foresee things to be able to last another 15 years. I would like to be wrong, but by 2040, this place will be unrecognizable. The train has already left the station and is running away down the tracks. Doesn't seem to matter which party is holding the reigns.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
1. In what part(s) of the manufacturing process, are/were you involved?
The part where we make them.


2. In what calendar years are/were you involved in the manufacturing process?

In the years of the Julian calendar.

3. What is the wholesale price of the bump stock devices produced by the manufacturing process with which you are involved?

who Knows? It depends on how much we have to bribe you guys to get the damn things manufactured.

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?

Every one of them was produced by our processes and they were all sold to retailers, resellers and consumers in years which have calendars.

5. What were your approximate gross receipts for the sale of these bump stock devices in each calendar year (from 2014—present)?

All the receipts that we received were extremely Pleasant to handle. There was never a gross one in the bunch.

6. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?

They sell themselves & we just never bothered marketing.


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?

I'd expect total bankruptcy after gun owners start burning down state houses across the country.


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)?

Every one of them would sell out for a premium the week before that law went into effect. It would not be enough to recoup the Lost business we have already incurred over similar illegal actions by BATFE and DOJ.


9. What costs do you expect to be associated with the disposition of existing bump stock device inventory?

Someone will have to raise all the prices the week before this law goes into effect.

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.

They would become even more popular with casual militia members, retired servicemen, off-duty LEOs, and incipient firearms investors. The market would be short-lived, but it would be absolutely insured profits, created by your mere attempt to create these regulations.

This Market will exist for the same historical reason that every black/grey Market existed after a prohibition was established.

Okay, seriously folks: how much of this data does the government have a right to know?
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
How much of a right does government agencies have to demand customer lists when they raid businesses operating lawfully?

It has happened.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
Well, evidently, if you've ever spoken to someone who ever knew a Russian or had seen the movie "The Russians are coming the Russians are coming!" then you're probably guilty of something under our socially just legal system.
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
If anyone is interested in reading the proposed regulations, here is the 55 pager.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download

The opening of the pdf is rather telling. Especially that it ignores that the hand other hand that isn't pulling the trigger, is required to also be used.

The way this is written, would seem ripe for failure since it the operation that they state is false. Paraphrasing "self acting/self regulating mechanism of the trigger to reset and continue firing without physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter".
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
Final paragraph of the 55 page report would be the new definition of a machinegun.

upload_2018-3-26_19-1-7.png
 

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
The registry is open for replies. I did make one, and I asked for clarification.

Here is the direct link if anyone else would like to make a public comment.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

Comment:

After reading the regulation change proposal, I notice that a few facts were omitted where it pertained to how a bump stock functions.

The main one, the DOJ essentially said that the trigger is held down and the firearm will continue to fire on its' own. It had mentioned the Akins accelerator numerous times as precedent, but failed to mention a necessary fact of how a bump stock functions.

Not only does the firearm require a reciprocating action, that requires functions of both hands, the shooters secondary hand must also hold a certain and varying amount of tension forward on the weapon to help facilitate the reciprocating action. So, the DOJ's statements that all you have to do is pull the trigger to obtain "automatic function" is factually incorrect and misleading.

I would like to see this explanation addressed where it pertains to classifying them as machineguns because they are not.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
The reality is that putting a bump fire stock on a gun does not turn it into a machine gun.

I suggest we take Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr and give one of them a machine gun and one of them a semi-auto with the bump fire stock, and see which one can pick up the gun and spray the most bullets.

With a little training and practice anybody can make a gun bump fire, and having a bump fire stock can make it easier; but not having a bump fire stock is not the difference between being able to bump fire and not bump fire.

The difference is the operator.

So because one guy can shoot a revolver at the rate of one round per second and another guy can shoot a revolver at the rate of 6 rounds in 1.2 seconds, does not make that weapon a machine gun.

In other words the operator cannot make one physical weapon into another weapon simply by the manner of his operation.
 

CaddmannQ

.50 BMG
BTW, my entire philosophy on this matter has reversed course.

I think the bump fire stock is an unprofessional, and probably dangerous, piece of nonsense and I wish they'd never been invented.

But I don't think the government has any right to make this illegal by fiat.

I want to see requirements for some rigorous scientific testing before they start taking away people's rights.

IMO, Law cannot rely on anecdotal evidence. Law must rely on the facts, and the facts are so far vague & undetermined.
 

cmcdonald

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
The reality is that putting a bump fire stock on a gun does not turn it into a machine gun.

I suggest we take Rosie O'Donnell and Roseanne Barr and give one of them a machine gun and one of them a semi-auto with the bump fire stock, and see which one can pick up the gun and spray the most bullets.

With a little training and practice anybody can make a gun bump fire, and having a bump fire stock can make it easier; but not having a bump fire stock is not the difference between being able to bump fire and not bump fire.

The difference is the operator.

So because one guy can shoot a revolver at the rate of one round per second and another guy can shoot a revolver at the rate of 6 rounds in 1.2 seconds, does not make that weapon a machine gun.

In other words the operator cannot make one physical weapon into another weapon simply by the manner of his operation.
I’d like to see Roseanne and Oprah...I think that would be a good paring. Roseanne can be pretty annoying and Oprah awful preachy........you never know what might happen...jus sayin:eek:
 

cmcdonald

Forum Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
I dunno......

With 65g FMJ they'd probably just miss each other completely. :mad:

( . . . proving once again that in this business it's all about the operator.)
LOL...I thought you were going for the “not a big enough or fast enough” bullet for large, thick skinned dangerous game.......:giggle:
 
Top