ATF: Volitional vs. Nonvolitional Movement

As we have seen, the ATF, in ruling bump-fire stocks to be machineguns, explained that fingers are triggers, and it’s a machinegun if the finger isn’t moved volitionally. Some folks are confused, because they assumed that the volitional — and coordinated — movement of the off arm to cause the trigger firearm thingamajiggy to engage the finger trigger should count.

No prob. The PhDs in Anatomy and Physiology at the ATF have that covered: It’s only volitional when we say it is.

Thus, as explained in federal court to a science-challenged impaired… oh, hell… fucking idiot judge who bought it:

Volitional Movement


Not Volitional Movement

When you get down to it, it ain’t much more of a stretch than the shoestring machinegun.

Thanks, VNRA.

6 thoughts on “ATF: Volitional vs. Nonvolitional Movement

  1. Anonymous April 12, 2019 / 2:09 pm

    Oh but just think of the interesting cross examination questions and discovery requests that every criminal attorney will ask on behalf of ANY CLIENT, IN ANY CASE involving the EVERY FIRARM TECHNICAL REPORT from ATF…..

    The term is impeached…..As in the ATF expert impeached himself by his change of testimony.

    “Where you incorrect in your analysis then or are you incorrect now sir?”

    “What assurance does the jury have that next week due to political pressure you won’t change your testimony about my clients firearm?”

    Discovery in criminal case will bring forth ALL INFO….not this refusal you see in the civil case on bumpstocks…..THEY HAVE TO PRODUCE OR NOT PROSECUTE.

    How can you prosecute when under cross exam you have to tell the jury, that essentially your boss (DOJ) refused to let you see if bumpstocks were ever actually used in the Mandalay Bay incident of October 1st 2017….

    That is why folks they will NEVER PROSECUTE A SINGLE SOUL on this….Yes they will take your stuff….Charge you will unlawful possession of a bumpstock? (actually they would try and hide that fact and charge you with possession of an unregistered Machinegun)

    NOPE. NOT.


    • Bear April 12, 2019 / 3:25 pm

      It’s lawyers arguing, not a witness being grilled, but this argument has already come up in federal court in Guedes et al (and I think GOA). The judge blew it off as being addressed in the Final Rule explanation (many commenters, including myself, raised that point). Don’t recall the exact quote, but it was basically, “Our previous determinations were correct given our understanding at the time. Now we have a better understanding, so there’s no conflict in our conflicting rulings.”


      • Anonymous April 12, 2019 / 4:21 pm

        Let me respectfully ask you this Bear;

        How many times since it’s inception in 1993 has the ATF charged someone with a violation of 922(r)?

        How many convictions since 1993?

        Mind you I agree with your points brought up.

        If the robed high priests of the religion of government (Federal Judges) can with utter such nonsense as “The founding fathers never imagined guns that fired more than once when the trigger is pulled” and not bother to google “pepperbox” or “duck foot” or the “Ferguson Rifle” or heaven forbid they actually crack a history book (I know, not going to happen).

        Of course it’s nonsense. Yes they reject history and reality and substitute it with there own….

        Having watched a jury ponder their shoes and ignore everything else for the next 15 minutes when that shoe string letter was read in a Seattle Federal courtroom….The defendant walked BTW.

        Yes, DOJ knows that certain things kill cases deader than a hammer in a world where conviction rates determine your place in the Feral, um I mean, federal pack at the Department of Just US.


        • Bear April 12, 2019 / 5:15 pm

          Even if they can’t get a conviction, they can bankrupt some sucker trying. And the propaganda push demonizing bump-fire stocks (“OMG! Everyone knows the Vegas killer turned his guns into machineguns with those evil things!”) has been so effective that I wouldn’t want to the be the first test when the feds are determined to make an example.


          • Anonymous April 12, 2019 / 7:28 pm

            You are correct, and I would never suggest ANYONE attempt such a foolish act.

            As they say you may beat the rap, but not the ride…..

            The robed high priests of the religion of government demand that money be sacrificed one way or another…

            I merely point these things out here so that the seeds planted may bloom some future day.


            • Bear April 12, 2019 / 8:14 pm

              Fortunately, it shouldn’t be a problem as it appears almost everyone lost their bump-fire stocks in freak boating accidents.

     (scroll down for poll)

              We gun owners are in serious need of boating safety classes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s