Jump to content

Bump stock ban

Recommended Posts

Lets all refrain from commenting as;


2) Anti-2A groups monitor the boards for our Poker Hands.

We don't want them to close any potential deficiencies they might have.

They'll be a time and a place to voice our opinions.

Now is not the time.


Edited by CandRHolder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMACPa said:


When  "IS THE TIME" , to voice our rights ?

After "the bill is past, so we can see what's in it" ?

Answer: After the Ban is Codified. 

Its a known fact that Anti-2A Groups monitor boards like this.

This board has probable the most collective experience of NFA use, application and processes than any other.

Posting Opinions or Legal Positions regarding what is possibly deficient in any pending Anti-2A Ban/Action, (including ways to defeat it), MIGHT cause a pending Ban to be shored up and modified before the finial filing.

Btw, IT IS A HUGH ISSUE, Banning BStocks today will open the door to banning similar firearms related items in the future.

I do NOT support ANY proposed Ban, (especially when the Technologies Branch already formally decided the device WAS NOT A MG AND WAS LEGAL).


Edited by CandRHolder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The BATFE has announced 

Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications

Which means no further questionable approvals will be made. Complete weapons with the accessory attached must be submitted. The chances of getting the sample returned is slim to none.

In order to stop Bumpstocks all they have to do is rescind the approval..( Similar done with drop in auto sears which were without restriction prior to 1981.) They do not need any higher authority to do the rescinding.

They are waiting for public outcry which has been done. The president can only SUGGEST a rescinding. 

To do this it needs only be published in the federal register. Common knowledge.


Edited by mstrmstr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 6:23 PM, DMACPa said:


When  "IS THE TIME" , to voice our rights ?

After "the bill is past, so we can see what's in it" ?

Now is the time.  Now we know the codified language and how to legal fight it.

Regardless of your thoughts god/bad about bump stocks we need to UNITE to fight the BACK DOOR TO LAW MAKING.

Here's the legalese of arguing against the ban.  IMHO its a rock-soild argument as we all know the a bump stock comes no where near fitting the codified Legal Definition of a Machine Gun.


Not: I am not connected to this firm and only have seen their work published on their blogs



FICG Files Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Challenging ATF’s Final Rule on Bumpstocks

Earlier today, the Department of Justice released the approved Final Rule on bumpstocks. As was expected, the Rule alters the definition of the term “machine gun” (in the regulations pertaining to the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act) to include the following language

* * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

As a result, Damien Guedes backed by institutional plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation, Inc., represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, filed suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Acting ATF Director Thomas E. Brandon, purported Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, and the United States of America seeking a preliminary injunction.

Among other things, the suit alleges that Matthew Whitaker lacks the authority to implement a final rule, challenges the ATF’s violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, and argues that ATF usurped its authority by rewriting the definition to a term that Congress had clearly defined. For an overview of the lawsuit, see BuzzFeed’s comprehensive article – Gun Rights Activists Are Already Suing Over Trump’s Bump Stock Ban.

Individuals wishing to donate to the legal challenge may do so by contributing to the fund.

If your rights have been violated by a federal administrative agency during a rulemaking proceeding or you want to file a comment in support or opposition to a notice of proposed rulemaking, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...