Ammo For Sale

« « And how much does the anti-gun industry contribute to the economy? | Home | Gear fail » »

Bump stock stuff

The CSM: With lack of incentives, few Americans are giving up their bump stocks

Why would they?

Of course, if the proposed federal ban on them, in which the bureaucracy is making up law from nothing, goes through, a lot more people will be ex post facto criminals.

IIRC, after ATF arbitrarily decided to ban the Akins Accelerator, they got a warrant for the sales records from the company. Then mailed letters to those who had purchased them to remove a spring. So, did you buy a Slidfire? They’ve shut down by the way. I did. Did you pay cash? I didn’t. So, I imagine at some point in the future, presuming the ban goes through, I’ll get such a letter.

I plan on turning mine over to my attorney while we discuss legal options.

15 Responses to “Bump stock stuff”

  1. wizardpc Says:

    I read the proposed rule again yesterday after finding a binary trigger on a kinda-sorta sale. Wasn’t great, but was cheaper than I’d seen.

    The proposed rule would ban those, too, I think.

  2. Ravenwood Says:

    Hopefully when they shut down, they’ll destroy the records. I would. And since they aren’t a firearm, there’s no requirement to keep them.

  3. Silence DoGood Says:

    If the BATFE calls, just tell them you sold it to some guy with an East European accent you met at the truck stop.

    Either that or the bump-fire stock (and please call it by its full name) was among the gear lost in that horrible boating accident.

  4. JTC Says:

    It’s not the junk stocks they care about, but to assign felonies to you removing any legal right to resist when they come looking for the real guns.

  5. Geoff Says:

    With any luck, SlideFire “lost” their sales records. I suggested it to them when the first talk of them shutting down was announced. No records, no letters, no way to know who has them.

  6. Sigivald Says:

    Of course, if the proposed federal ban on them, in which the bureaucracy is making up law from nothing, goes through, a lot more people will be ex post facto criminals.

    That. Is. Still. Not. What. “Ex Post Facto”. Means.

    If the ban goes through, anyone continuing to possess one will be a brand new criminal for breaking a brand new law after it goes into effect.

    “Ex post facto” laws would make possessing it in the past criminal now, and that’s why they’re unconstitutional, as they’re inherently tyrannical.

    Not “banning something that used to not be banned”, which remains as constitutional in itself as ever.

  7. sage419 Says:

    If .Gov wants them, they should be required to buy them at whatever the market will bear. IF they can show that it’s constitutional for them to take them in the first place. And some activist judge isn’t going to convince me of that any time soon.

  8. Leigh R Rich Says:

    There were 2 manufacturers of them. Bump Fire and Slide Fire. Neither had serial numbers and were basical sold off the rack at any store or online. Impossible track unless they do a door to door search.

  9. ExpatNJ Says:

    Silence DoGood May 22nd, 2018 at 8:16 pm wrote:
    > just tell them …


    Ever hear of “18 U.S.C. Section 1001” ?
    Generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in “any matter within the jurisdiction” of the federal government of the United States, even by merely denying guilt when asked by a federal agent.

    That is how Martha Stewart went to jail.

    Instead, memorize this statement:
    “I am exercising my 5th Amendment Right to remain silent. I want my attorney. I do NOT consent to any search”.
    Repeat as needed.

    Give them your attorney’s phone number (you DO have one, right?), and if they do not present any Search or Arrest Warrants, tell them they are trespassing, and ask them to leave your property immediately. If they do not, call your local law enforcement to escort them.

    [Note: This is NOT legal advice. I am not an Attorney-At-Law, nor have I been admitted to The Bar in any jurisdiction]

  10. Ron W Says:

    @sage419, yes and Gov must have an enumerated delegated power or else it may do NOTHING according to the plain grammatical wording othe 10th Amendment. There is NO enumerated, delegated power for FedGov gun laws pertaining to the People.

  11. SayUncle Says:

    Sigivald, a fair point. I didn’t really mean it in the legal sense. But noted for future reference.

  12. Chris Says:

    Sigivald – I think the .gov position is that yes, indeed, they were/are banned by the National Firearms Act. The subtle difference is that they issued letters interpreting that they were legal under that law. What’s now changing is that they are backpedaling and saying… oh… we made a mistake and interpreted the law incorrectly. For it to be a new law – that requires new legislation. What’s up in the air now is whether or not there is enough support to change the interpretation of the law. Just my thoughts – I respect yours.

  13. Sigivald Says:

    No worries, Unc.

    It’s just a pet peeve because it’s *so common* in gun circles – and the distinction is super important in terms of “bad policy idea that makes people angry” vs. “actually unconstitutional thing, unconstitutional in a way even the Courts won’t ignore, even on guns”.

    It hurts us both in terms of “not sounding like we’re all weirdo sovereign citizen types” and in terms of “wasting our effort on non-issues” when we make that kind of mistake.

    Chris: Still not an ex post facto law, though, is the thing, even if they do decide “it was always banned”.

    So long as they don’t attempt to apply criminal penalties or charges to possession during the time they were saying it was legal, that is; “we screwed up and thought it was legal when it shoulda been banned” is not a problem. “You’re going to jail for believing us when we said it was legal” would be a Constitutional issue.

    Doing that smacks of an ex post facto law, and should be challenged if attempted, and I’d expect the Courts to agree.

  14. Ravenwood Says:


    Since when does the executive branch interpret the law? That is the job of the judicial branch.

  15. Chris Says:

    Raven, ATFs Technology Branch does it all the time.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges