Ammo For Sale

« « I doubt it will pass in this form | Home | He’d get my vote » »

Pull the other one

The ATF guy who greenlighed the bumpstock: We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun

Do you guys not remember the mental gymnastics you went through on the street sweepers? Or your various whoopsies, like with the Akins Accelerator or pistol braces. I guess they just weren’t committed enough this time for some reason.

5 Responses to “Pull the other one”

  1. nk Says:

    It was a sear-tripper.
    One-way ticket to jail, yeah.
    Took us too long to find out.
    But we found out.

  2. nk Says:

    Don’t do the bump with no big fat magazine? (rickroll kind of)

  3. Jay Eimer Says:

    They couldn’t find a way because of the way the definition is written. If you have to pull/release/re-pull to get the 2nd shot off, it’s not a full auto. It’s just an “aid” accomplish pull/reset/re-pull faster.

    Scarier is Pelosi’s proposal, as it would make short reset triggers illegal (let you do that pull/reset/pull again faster). They’d also potentially outlaw non-standard buffers and springs, recoil springs for pistols, etc. Anything that changes the speed of the bolt/slide potentially changes the possible rate of fire. Her proposed law would outlaw anything that did that in the positive direction.

  4. Michael Quinn Says:

    There are a number of ways that the ATF could reclassify bump stocks as machine guns but they all would require them to admit that this guy was wrong. You could say that the trigger which causes the gun to fire is actually the foregrip, not the normal trigger part. Since pushing forward on the foregrip causes the gun to fire repeatedly that’s a machine gun.

    It would actually be justifiable. Imagine that you had a gun where the disconnector was an external lever and if you pushed it just right it would go full auto. Does anyone expect that to pass muster?

  5. Sigivald Says:

    Per that link, there’s no “gynmastics” to declaring the StreetSweeper a DD; all they needed to do was invoke “no sporting purpose”, which is exactly what they did, by simply asserting it.

    That’s just a page of quotes from the tax code about definitions and a statement that they apply to the StreetSweeper.

    (Which is why I support, if we can’t just remove the classification in general, a codified “shotguns up to 10 gauge simply aren’t DDs” law.

    Because that’s simply a better law than the “until we decide otherwise” we have now.)