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.
That would be…
OK, Trump; you wanna convince you really changed your victim-disarming mind, and are truly a hardcore RKBA supporter now.
Do it. John Ross. ATF.
Added: Come to think of it, I should be the new NASA director, too.
My first reaction to seeing someone blame gun dealers for a death is to call, “Bulls**t!”
Straw Gun Sales Blamed for Oregon Slaying
Vivian Englund sued World Pawn Exchange and online gun broker J&G II dba J&G Sales on Jan. 7 in Multnomah County Court. She also sued pawn shop owner Richard James Sinatra, and Diane Boyce, the mother of Jeffrey Boyce, who killed Englund’s sister, Kirsten.
But keep reading.
“She came in and said the gun was for her,” Reed said. “We said OK, we can’t prove her wrong. And her background check cleared. Then when the incident happened, the ATF investigated and cleared her and us.”
Englund says the pawn shop let Jeffrey Boyce pay for two of the guns with his credit card. The shop’s invoice for one of the guns states: “SOLD TO: JEFFREY BOYCE FOR TRANSFER,” according to the complaint.
According to the law suit, Boyce was a convicted felon. If I’m reading this right, and the allegations are true, it sure looks like they knew Boyce’s mother wasn’t the actual purchaser. It’s tagged for him and he paid, but they ran the NICS check on mommy?
J&G Sales should be dropped from the suit. They correctly transferred the firearm to an FFL: World Pawn. World Pawn is the one who screwed up, and apparently documented it. I am curious about the pawn shop’s statement that the ATF investigated and cleared them, though. Given the ATF’s willingness to imposed sanctions and lift licenses for any number of minor violations, I have to question the accuracy of the suit’s claims.
Feel free to dispute whether any such laws should be. But if someone chooses to be an FFL and agree to those rules, they bloody well should make some effort to follow them.
I’m looking forward to seeing what comes of this suit.
Actually, there’s still no EO published.
But the ATF has released new “guidance”. Sort of.
DO I NEED A LICENSE TO BUY AND SELL FIREARMS?
Guidance to help you understand when a Federal Firearms License is required under federal law
The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect and is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits in any matter, case, or proceeding, see United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).
That translates from the Bureaucratese as, “Follow these instructions, and when we bust you anyway, you can’t use us as an excuse. Eff you.”
From what I can tell, nothing has changed. My guess is that someone pointed out that federal law already is very specific as to what constitutes being engaged in the business of selling firearms. But Barrycade had already spouted off so much that they released something “new” to cover his ignorant ass.
Behind the scenes you can expect the ATF to run more gun show stings, bust people who clearly are not engaged in the business, and simply destroy them financially with malicious prosecution. It happened before, and seemed to have tapered off. Expect a major ramp up again. Jarret and Lynch gave the tip off when they said selling even one gun can make you a dealer despite the clear language of 18USC912: “repetitive purchase and resale of firearms”. Be careful out there. They don’t have to win in court; just destroy you. And that appears to be the plan.
In the ’90s, the Dumbocrats took away FFLs because they thought those folks weren’t selling enough guns.
Now the Salesman-In-Chief* reportedly wants to make everyone get FFLs because they sell too many guns.
I hope the ATF is ready for the application avalanche. (Not mention a few other things.)
* I knew of these fine folks when I lived in New Hampshire. If you’re in the area, consider doing business with them.
You’re suddenly a ‘dealer’ in the eyes of the law(less)? You’ll need a six month supply of those free 4473s from the ATF. Naturally, all of you anticipate Cabela’s-scale business, right?
Read the whole thing over at The Zelman Partisans.