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.

Semi-Auto vs. Full-Auto

Lunatics and liars — i.e.- federal attorneys and judges — matter-of-factly state that fingers are triggers, and the only difference between a machinegun and a semi-auto is whether the finger is moved volitionally.

Some people don’t quite grasp that, so allow me to illustrate.

Under the new definition, this is a semi-automatic trigger group.

finger moving volitionally

And this is a fully automatic trigger group.

finger not moving volitionally

I expect the ATF to kick in my door over that NFA finger any time now.

Thanks, VNRA.

Should you be confused why the volitional movement of the off arm doesn’t count, the ATF has that covered.

How Many Bump-Fire Stocks WERE at Mandalay Bay?

David Codrea‘s ATF FOIA request on bump-fire stocks has generated something that puzzles me.

The ATF FOIA dump includes this on page 36.

12 of the .223 AR-type firearms are equipped with a type of “slide-fire” or “bump-fire” device capable of simulating automatic fire (see attached photos).

That number is odd because when you go to the LVMPD Final Investigative Report you get a differing number.

14. Not 12. Somehow, LVMPD came up with two more bump-fire stocks than the ATF reported. And yet, both ATF and LVMPD came up with the same overall count: 22 AR-type (-15 and -10), 1 bolt-action, and 1 revolver; 24 total.

Of course, this isn’t the only discrepancy in weapon-type counts. The Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail, and other outlets reported that the shooter had at least one converted fully automatic rifle in addition to the bump-fire stocked firearms. Per the Daily Mail on October 3, 2017:

Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said on Monday it wasn’t clear whether the full-auto gun was modified, or if it was originally made that way.

and

“…full-auto assault rifles…”

more

“At least one of those was automatic, while another two had been modified with legal bump-stock devices…”

Fast forward to the FIP of Aust 3, 2018, and the machineguns have disappeared from the narrative, while two extra bump-fire stocked weapons appear.

Make of it what you will. I just find it odd. And even odder, per the FOIA dump, that the ATF, responsible for NFA items like full-auto assault rifles, was not allowed to examine any of the shooter’s weapons.

Quislings Defending Vichy NRA

The Vichy NRA appears to be in full damage control mode as people read the ATF’s final bump-fire stock rule, and realize just how badly the group screwed over gun owners.

This is a bit longer than my usual blog posts, so I’ll give you a TL;DR:

For three consecutive days, columns have been published defending the NRA’s bump-fire fiasco. In all three cases, it is the same refrain we heard after NFA, GCA, FOPA, Brady, Constitutional Carry, and all the rest: It isn’t our fault. And it would have been worse if we hadn’t done it. We derailed legislation that would have banned more. Except the bump-stock-type device (BSTD) rule can be applied to all the devices the NRA claims to have protected, and makes every semiauto in existence “easily converted to a machinegun,” and subject to a post-FOPA ban. And it didn’t even derail any legislation

Keep reading and I’ll address the points made by Marion Hammer, Duane Liptak, and Tom knighton, and explain — yet again — what I mean by that.

Continue reading

Bump-Stock-Type Devices Proposed Rulemaking

In case you haven’t commented on the proposed rule to ban bump-fire stocks, you should. Currently victim disarmers seem to be trying to flood the system with pro-ban comments.

Comment Here. Comments are due by June 27, 2018, at 11:59 PM ET.

You might consider something along these lines:

I oppose any rule redefining bump-stock-type devices (BSTD) as machineguns or any other type of firearm.

1. The description of how and what BSTDs do is grossly incorrect. While they assist in trigger reset, each shot fired still requires a separate operation of the trigger.

2. BSTDs do not increase the theoretical maximum rate of fire. In fact, since they bleed off recoil energy in order to assist in trigger reset, they can DECREASE the theoretical maximum rate of fire.

3. The The description of how and what BSTDs do conflicts with existing legislation defining machineguns (multiple rounds fired per operation of the trigger) as each round fired still requires manual operation of the trigger.

4. The rule is unenforceable: a) with no grandfathering it violates the Fifth Amendment as a taking without just compensation, b) no one knows how many BSTDs there are or where they are making confiscation without further Fifth Amendment violations impossible, c) the language is so vague that it would apply to any semiautomatic firearm that can be held in the non-firing hand (any semiautomatic firearm that can be so held can be bump-fired).

5. MILLER defined weapons which may be banned/regulated as those that are not in common military use; if a firearm with a BSTD is suddenly a “machinegun” — which are in common military use, they are protected under the SCOTUS MILLER decision, opening the ATF to lawsuits. You really don’t want to go there.