BATFE's flip flops on the legality of bump stocks

[BillSWPA]

Apparently, the original position was that they were legal.

Then, in 2006, under a generally (but not totally) pro-gun president under whom the Justice Dept. helped us bring about significant Supreme Court victories, the BATFE decided to ban bump stocks.

Then, in 2010, under a very-anti-gun president who gave us Fast and Furious, the presidential scandal that probably resulted in more violations of federal law than any other presidential scandal in history, BATFE reversed itself again and decided tha bump stocks were legal.

In short, BATFE under a generally pro-gun president did not want bump stocks out there, but BATFE under a very anti-gun president, who in his own words was working behind the scenes to bring about gun control, decided bump stocks were okay.

Definitely makes my wonder about the real motivating factors for the successive decisions.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us-las-vegas-shooting-bump-stock/2017/10/09/id/818674/

[SamAdams]

What's the actual law say? Agencies don't make law, only enforce existing statutes (supposedly).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TGS]

What's the actual law say? Agencies don't make law, only enforce existing statutes (supposedly).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Executive regulatory agencies have a level of interpretation involved in their job. Specific to the topic at hand, the ATF has a role in determining whether a given product falls under a specific category as established by law.

[BillSWPA]

What's the actual law say? Agencies don't make law, only enforce existing statutes (supposedly).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually, they do. Administrative agencies are typically given, by Congress, the ability to make regulations that have the force of law.

[Wendell]

Wayne LaPierre was talking about how bump stocks have "...fuzzed the line..." between fully-automatic and semi-automatic firearms (in the eyes of the public, at least).
The mainstream media is going after the NRA for failing to support more "common-sense" gun control.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us that the Obama DOJ was behind it all.

[SamAdams]

Administrative bureaucratic agencies have been called 'the fourth branch of government.' Nevertheless, it is the legislative branch that is tasked with writing laws. If select fire weapons are defined as those that allow multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, bump fire stocks do not fit that definition. It seems highly unlikely that the government bureaucrats changed their minds about the nature of bump fire stocks because they were feeling generous toward the shooting public. It seems much more likely that they lost in court.

Admittedly, I haven't researched this topic deeply as I have no interest in bump stocks. But it seems that the legislature would need to write new laws to restrict these items, or they would already be regulated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HCM]

What's the actual law say? Agencies don't make law, only enforce existing statutes (supposedly).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

At the federal level, congress writes the laws but they are usually the broad concepts. The details are often worked out by the agency charged with implementation via the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. Proposed CFR regulations and changes to existing CFR regulations are published in the federal register with a public comment period before being put into effect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations


Under the nondelegation doctrine, federal agencies are authorized by "enabling legislation" to promulgate regulations (rulemaking).[2] The process of rulemaking is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): generally, the APA requires a process that includes publication of the proposed rules in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), a period for comments and participation in the decisionmaking, and adoption and publication of the final rule, via the Federal Register.[2][3]

As TGS mentioned, many agencies have specific responsibility for interpretation of both laws and CFRs within their respective areas of expertise. This is done via policy letters on agency letterhead like the BATFE letter authorizing SIG braces etc.

[Wendell]

NRA opposes full ban on bump stocks used by Vegas gunman (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nra-bump-stocks-1.4346367)
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nra-bump-stocks-1.4346367>

[SamAdams]

Actually, they do. Administrative agencies are typically given, by Congress, the ability to make regulations that have the force of law.

Isn't that referred to as 'color of law' ? Is the term 'select fire' defined in actual statute ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HCM]

Isn't that referred to as 'color of law' ? Is the term 'select fire' defined in actual statute ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The Statute, 26 U.S. Code § 5845 -Defintions, refers to "Machineguns"


(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.


The terms "full auto" and "Select Fire" do not appear in the federal statutes, 26 US code or the related 18 USC 922.

[BillSWPA]

Wayne LaPierre was talking about how bump stocks have "...fuzzed the line..." between fully-automatic and semi-automatic firearms (in the eyes of the public, at least).
The mainstream media is going after the NRA for failing to support more "common-sense" gun control.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us that the Obama DOJ was behind it all.

Exactly how I connect the dots as well. There is only one reason an administration so hostile to gun ownership would reverse a decision to ban these devices, and it was not fear of losing in court.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SamAdams]

HCM - thank you. When I have time, out of curiosity, I'll have to look into the regulators stated reasons for approving, then disapproving, and then approving bump stocks again. Can they now go back & disapprove them again ? (While keeping a straight face). I suppose so. If government is run on a whim & the passions of the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HCM]

HCM - thank you. When I have time, out of curiosity, I'll have to look into the regulators stated reasons for approving, then disapproving, and then approving bump stocks again. Can they now go back & disapprove them again ? (While keeping a straight face). I suppose so. If government is run on a whim & the passions of the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I beleive those were policy letters as were the flip flops on SIG braces.

[MistWolf]

The bump fire stock the BATF said was illegal uses a spring to reset the stock. The BATF was ok with the design when the spring was removed and the stock was reset by the shooter instead

[Kingsfield]

Actually, they do. Administrative agencies are typically given, by Congress, the ability to make regulations that have the force of law.

I have not recently reviewed the instruments by which the ATF expresses an opinion concerning these devices.

It is my recollection that there is only informal interpretative guidance. If there is simply informal interpretative guidance concerning the law, such a statement does not have the force and effect of law. And, if this is considered to involve interpretation of a criminal statute (which the Supreme Court's Thompson Center opinion would suggest it should, though that could be distinguished), it would not be entitled to any judicial deference. Abramski, the Supreme Court's recent case involving resale of a glock by a LEO, is to that effect.

The discussion might, however, be found to involve persuasive analysis. And, in any case, these kinds of statements provide some non-binding prospective guidance to members of the public as to those matters that would or would not be the subject of enforcement proceedings.

[hufnagel]

all I hope is, the companies that make them are filling their warehouses with copies, as as soon as this settles down there's going to be a MASSIVE run on them. (i'm assuming they'll still be found legal.)