Shilling for Rights?

TinMan on Twitter thinks I work for firearms/ammunition manufacturers, since that’s the only possible reason I could defend constitutionally protect human/civil rights.

All of you fuckers are acting on behalf of manufacturers. People don’t need bumpstocks but if they don’t have them they’ll use less ammo. Bottom line hit. Rats.

I wish they’d pay me. My “income,” such as it is, is insufficient to even paying my ISP bill.

TinMan objects to bump-fire stocks, and professes to believe that only an industry shill would think banning them is a bad idea. In hopes that he was merely uneducated on the subject, I provided a collection of explanatory links.

He either ignored it.

Rather than futilely attempt to make my points in a flurry of abbreviated-to-a-state-of-nonsense, I’ll respond here, and tweet the link to him.

Ammunition and bumpstocks advocacy is not Human Rights. Play it how you want.

But the possession and responsible use is, as explained in the Bill of Rights, and elaborated on by courts all the way up to and including SCOTUS.

But, as TinHead would have know if he’d read and attempted to comprehend the source links I gave him, the issue isn’t bump-fire stocks, ammunition or even semi-automatic firearms. It is rights. And sanity.

TL;DR, TinBrain: By fiat, Trump changed law written by Congress to arbitrarily ban something. It was bump-fire stocks this time. Maybe next time it will be designating the Democratic National Committee a terrorist organization.

In the case of bump-fire stocks, he did it by shifting the Congressionally mandated definition of “function of the trigger” to finger. Fingers are now triggers.

What’s worse, if you aren’t moving your finger, it’s an automatic trigger, which under current ATF rules makes your finger a machinegun.

If Trump can declare, without legislation, your finger to be a machinegun, he can declare Tesla electric cars to be main battle tanks (but I don’t want to give Musk any more weird ideas).

If this precedent stands, there is nothing a president cannot do by fiat, no matter how irrational. He can declare anything to be anything else. Ban anything. (And for the Republicans out there: Kamala Harris is already promising to use Trump’s bump-fire precedent to impose more gun control by fiat.)

Hmm… Let’s say Trump doesn’t like GM closing plants and moving jobs out of the country. He declares GM to be a government agency and takes over. (Or Kamala Harris similarly nationalizes everything to impose the Green Raw Deal.)

Or he might redefine “particulate emissions” to be “fairy dust” and gut federal pollution standards. Or a Dem president might declare plant food to be a world-destroying poisonous ga… oh. Wait. A Dem president already did that.

And it’s very clear that you use the term “human rights” in the most flagrant way possible.

I use “human/civil rights” in a manner consistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, centuries of jurisprudence, and sanity.

For instance, the Declaration of Independence mentions a right to “life.” That implies a right to protect one’s life. Which in turn implies a right to defense, security as mentioned in the Bill of Rights (please note that in HELLER SCOTUS stated that outright). Firearms are an effective means of self defense.

Why do you need to fire any more rapidly than a current semi-auto or full auto weapon allows you to? For.. Fun? Do you need not only to shoot but eviscerate your deer? Is it not sensible that people are protected from this type of weapon? WTF do you want???

Tinny is still stuck on OMG! Shoot fast! Who needs to shoot fast?! Still hasn’t caught up the whole rights and reality thing.

And apparently he thinks bump-fire stocks not only allow you to fire faster than a semi-auto (they don’t; that is physically impossible, and is another part of the precedent of lying), but faster than an actual machinegun.

Perhaps — as I sarcastically suggested — he is a paid Bloomberg shill.

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.

Defense Arms Cost Reduction Act*

Whereas, the cost of a select-fire assault rifle exceeds the cost of a semi-automatic variant, and

Whereas, bump-stock-type devices are also low cost, and

Whereas, bump-stock-type devices are machineguns found to be suitable for military use,

We find that the Department of Defense will see a significant cost savings in replacing all existing expensive select-fire assault rifles with semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump-stock-type devices.

The Department of Defense is directed to so replace all assault rifles with semi-automatic rifles and bump-stock-type devices as quickly as allowed by current procurement laws and regulations.

The cost of the new arms will be offset by transferring all select-fire assault rifle to the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which will permanently convert them to semi-automatic-only operation, and sell them to eligible civilians, the resulting revenues to be applied to the procurement cost of the bump-stock-type device equipped semi-automatic rifles.

* Just seemed appropriate.

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.


“…full-auto assault rifles…”


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

Fast forward to the FIP of August 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.

Bump-Fire Ban: Protecting Yourself

With the “bump stocks = machineguns” ban now in effect, folks are looking for legal cover. For instance, the Virgina Citizens Defense League has suggested:

1. One of the other groups fighting the ban, the Firearms Policy Foundation, got the DC Circuit Court to apply a stay to their members only. The good news is that you can join the Firearms Policy Foundation for as little as $1 and be covered by their blanket stay.

Some points about that:

  1. The stay order referred to ‘current’ members. That may limit it to those were already members at the time the order was issued. Frankly, the court would have to clarify that.
  2. There is some case law that limits groups extending memberships. If you had donated/joined prior to this, you may be covered. But still don’t count on it.
  3. Whether a member or not Firearms Policy Coalition is working their asses off on your behalf. Donate. They’re trying to protect you, member or not.

While I am pessimistic about the outcome, the Guedes et al case (along with several others) are far from over. The latest unfavorable decision from the SCOTUS was only about a stay pending a preliminary injunction pending an actual ruling on the merits of the case. Either way the ruling eventually goes, it is likely to be appealed by our side or the government.

In short, there’s still a long battle to fight. I know FPC is willing to take this to the Supreme Court, if necessary, but that takes a lot of work from attorneys who need to be paid (attorneys need to eat and pay bills, too). Without you and me kicking in, their resources will be strained.


You can also help by spreading the word. Or maybe you have useful research skills. Let them know you’re willing to help. Because you are, right?

For your rights?

FPC is helping you. Help them to do that.

And if the VNRA asks your help… just remember those bastards caused this.

Bump Stocks: An admission that “Acting” AG Whitaker’s signature wasn’t valid

Barr’s history on gun control makes this no great surprise.

New AG rubber stamps illegal bump stock rule change
Scheduled to be published on March 14th, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General William Barr will ratify a final rule from the ATF that determined bump stocks to be a “machine gun”.

This reaffirmation is in response to a federal lawsuit challenging then acting Attorney General Whitaker’s unconstitutional appointment to the position, who originally ratified the final rule.

Clearly, the government felt their defense of Whitaker’s validity was weak (which, having read the laws, I knew). They hope to walk into court and say, “That’s part’s moot Your Honor; the confirmed Attorney General signed it, too.”

But they just opened up another can of worms. Whitaker signed the rule on December 18, 2018. The rule — which the government just effectively admitted wasn’t valid — was officially published in the Federal Register on December 26.

Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will have until the effective date of the rule (90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register) to comply.

If Barr has to sign it again to shut down arguments over the validity, it has to be republished in the Register again, now that it has finally been “properly” signed.

And that resets the countdown clock.

So publish it, as now scheduled on March 14, 2019, and start the new 90 day countdown, with a new deadline of June 13, 2019. In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

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

Yep, Jerry the Geek is a “Fudd”

This is a bit longish, but I hope you’ll read it. It’s pretty damned important; especially for naive types who haven’t kept up with Trump’s proposed bump-fire stock ban.

It’s more, far more.

Bumpstock Ban
My opinion counts for very little, and that’s because I’m a “FUDD” when it comes to Bumpstocks.

Oh, what’s a Fudd? That’s a pejorative term aimed at shooters who only care about hunting. Deer, Elk, Quail, Lions … or Skeet, Trap, etc. it doesn’t matter; as long as the Feds don’t mess with their gun sport, they could care less about any other 2nd Amendment issues. (It’s actually defined in the Urban Dictionary.)

It surprised me to learn that I was a FUDD, but actually I have no use for a Bump Stock (spelling varies). While I’ve written about the issue before, I find I can’t get all that worked up about it. I mean, who needs a Bump Stock?

At that point, I hoped I was reading satire.

On the other hand, who needs an M15? (semi-automatic version of the M16 Assault Rifle … which unlike the M16 is NOT capable of “Selective fire”). I don’t own an M15, because I have no use for it.

The point is, most people think there is no difference between the M15 (semi-auto only) and the M15 (capable of full auto fire), and so the CIVILIAN M15 is denigrated almost as vigorously as the M15.

M-15? The more common term for the civilian semiautomatic variants of the Colt AR-15 is… AR-15. Or — as I tend to use AR-pattern. Calling the class “M15” tends to confuse it with the military assault rifle “M-16” (which JtG proceeds to do by managing to call both “M15”.

There are various bloggers describing the future consequences of banning “attachments” and “modifications”. One of the most popular is:

Suppose you lighten the trigger pull on your firearm. Is that to become an illegal alteration?

Mr. Geek needs to read the NPRM. It specific cites “increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms” as the reason for considering bump-fire stocks to be machineguns.

And he should be paying attention to federal and state legislation (some passed) that ban not only bump-fire device, but also cranks and anything that else that “increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms”. That is, anything that helps you work the trigger quickly (cranks, practice) or improves the action to allow it to operate quicker. One judge, in considering one of the newly passed state laws, noted that it would appear to include gun oil.

When the ATF becomes involved in nuances of equipment to otherwise legal firearms, it may be that they are over-reaching their mandate.

Or I may be wrong; perhaps that is precisely their “mandate”.

By executive order, the President directed DOJ to take action against bump-fire stocks. AG Sessions then issued a memorandum to the ATF to begin the regulatory process to make bump-fire stocks “machineguns.”

Yes, it’s their mandate. Where the hell have you been since October 2017?

They are exceeding — by Presidential direction — the law, which already defines “machinegun,” to the exclusion of bump-fire stocks. A machinegun must discharge more than one cartridge with a single manual operation of the trigger.

Bump-fire stocks channel recoil energy to help people operate the trigger — one round per trigger op — a little quicker and easily, without bothering with Miculek-level practice.

And that is precisely why the NPRM starts with a lie about how bump-fire stocks operate.

The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

Pay attention, Jerry T. Fudd.

That’s not the only lie in the NPRM, Jerry. Remember “rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull”? That, Fudd, is bullshit.

In an actual machinegun, “rate of fire” (or cyclic rate of fire) is how fast it discharges rounds while the trigger is held back. Pull trigger, hold trigger down, round discharges, action is cycled (whether by recoil, gas-diversion, or an electric motor), and another round fires. “Rate of fire” is usually expressed in rounds per minute (RPM), and is determined by the physical design of the firearm. In recoil or gas cycled machineguns, it’s determined by the physics of the design: mass/inertia of bolt and springs, amount of energy applied.

In a semiautomatic firearm, there is no actual rate of fire. Pull trigger, discharge round, action cycles next round into place, and … nothing. How fast that happens, as in machineguns, is determined by the physics of the gun. The shooter — the person operating the firearm — must manually allow the trigger to reset, and then manually operate the trigger again.

The only way to get the “rate of fire” of a semiauto is to factor in the how fast the shooter can operate the trigger in succession. This NPRM is about devices. It’s about how fast you can pull the trigger.

As I, and a great many other people, have noted, this rule would make Jerry Miculek an NFA firearm.

But, Fudd, I’ll tell you another secret: Bump-fire stocks don’t increase the rate at which the rifle can be fired.

“But, but… everyone knows they fire fast like machineguns! They must speed it up,” idiots — like the ATF — exclaim.

WRONG. Let me repeat: In a semiautomatic firearm, there is no actual rate of fire. Pull, trigger, discharge round, action cycles next round into place, and … nothing. How fast that happens, as in machineguns, is determined by the pahysics of the gun. The shooter — the person operating the firearm — must manually allow the trigger to reset, and then manually operate the trigger again.

How fast the rifle can potentially be manually fired is inherent in the design physics mass, inertia, energy.

What bump-fire stocks do is free-float so that bled-off recoil energy moves the rifle away from the trigger finger, allowing the trigger to be reset, and allows the shooter to manually (this is why the Akins Accelerator, with a return spring, wasn’t allowed) move the rifle forward again so the finger can again engage the trigger.

Shooting Speed: mass, inertia, energy.

Bump-fire bleeds off energy. That slows it down.

Someone who could pull the trigger fast enough to max out the cycle of a rifle without a bump-fire stock would achieve the theoretical “potential rate of fire.” The same gun, with bump-fire stock installed, loses energy, and thus has a lower theoretical “potential rate of fire.”

So Fudd, bump-fire doesn’t work the way the feds claim, it can’t accomplish what they claim. They lied. Repeatedly.* Why do you think they wrote that NPRM?

What it does is get the idea on the books that, “Fast is bad; we can regulate anything based on how arbitrarily fast it is. Too “fast,” it’s a machinegun. Made after May 1986. Turn it in or go to prison.”

Tell me, Jerry. Do you ever hunt or target shoot with a semiautomatic firearm? Is it possible for it to fire “too fast”?

How fast is “too fast,” you — and I — might wonder.

It’s undefined. Arbitrary. Like so much from the ATF Technical Branch, it’s…

Whatever the fuck they want it to be, and subject to subjective change. The better to fuck you over. Please recall that even the Akins Accelerator was approved before it was unapproved. Twice.

And if you don’t understand that it’s deliberate, you’re a fool.

When the commenting period on the NPRM opened in March, comments made on the published document vanished. “Comments not accepted“. Hundreds of comments disappeared.

Only after a series of complaints to the OIG, did the ATF open a new NPRM document which would accept comments. But they left the original document up, with no redirect to the working document, and no simple way to learn there even was a new document.

Only after more OIG complaints did the comments from the “dead” document appear on the new document. At which point they could be seen; there were actually thousands of comments, almost exclusively negative.

They lied, and they tried to game the system to prevent negative comments.

* Lie, or wild-ass guess? Also from the NPRM:

On October 1, 2017, a shooter attacked a large crowd attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. By using several AR-type rifles with attached bump-stock-type devices, the shooter was able to fire several hundred rounds of ammunition in a short period of time, killing 58 people and injuring over 800.

In fact, it has never been stated by anyone — local or federal — with the investigation that bump-fire stocks were used. Only that they were present. No ballistics data has been released which would tie a bump-fire stocked weapon to any casualty. The only firearm the investigation has publicly said — officially or unofficially — was actually used was the revolver with which the murderer suicided.

Very early on, someone in the investigation did tell reporters that at least one rifle converted to be fully automatic had been found, in addition to bump-fire stocked rifles.

It’s also worth noting that FOIA data dumps produced documentation showing the the ATF was NOT ALLOWED to examine any of the firearms from the Mandalay Bay shooting.

Whoa! Would you look at that.

Back in June, the Firearms Policy Coalition submitted a 932 page comment to the ATF’s proposed rule to ban bump-fire stocks. I was impressed. I read some of it, but never waded through all the attached exhibits.

So I missed something until today.

I just found a new Internet search engine and decided to test it by doing an ego-search on my name. One hit looked a little odd, so I checked the page, but still didn’t see why a search on my name turned that up. I did a text search on the page and found this:

Cool! I had no idea that FPC had cited me. I am honored that FPC thought my column was a worthy addition to their work.

Thank you!