# Are bumpstocks and silencers firearms in and of themselves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522 "2019-09-19T20:21:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/1 "2019-09-19T20:21:01Z")
**MartinLane** tries to show that Trump has “grabbed more guns” than any other President because [bump stocks and (later) silencers are firearms in and of themselves](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21870462&postcount=210), so that when bump stocks were banned it was a massive “gun grab”. Am I wrong in thinking that bump stocks and silencers are gun _accessories_ and not firearms themselves? ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/2 "2019-09-19T20:26:14Z")
You are wrong. The link to the CFR I posted says you are wrong. > **[27 CFR § 447.11 - Meaning of terms.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/447.11)** > [@](#): > > Machinegun. A “machinegun”, “machine pistol”, “submachinegun”, or “automatic rifle” is a firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, … The term “machinegun” includes a bump-stock-type device, You need to understand the CFR’s are not a popularity contest. And why is it that only Trump supporters who need to prove he is not anti-gun resort to this kind of foolishness? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/3 "2019-09-19T20:39:19Z")
Wait, people have decided to declare things that are obviously not firearms, to be firearms? If I declare that Twinkies are firearms, will they too become protected by the second amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/4 "2019-09-19T20:43:28Z")
Its a question of Semantics. No Bump stocks and silencers aren’t guns and so in a literal sense the statement that “Trump grabbed more guns” is incorrect. On the other hand, the bump stock and silencer ban, was one of the few times where something that was legally owned suddenly became illegal to own. Even the notorious assault weapons ban had a grand father clause. So if we consider “gun grabber” in the more figurative sense of someone who is going to take things away from you, then more of that happened under the Trump administration than under previous administrations. You can argue back and forth about which interpretation is the “correct” one, but in the end its all just boils down to a matter of opinion, or at best supports an accusation of sloppy use of language. Outside of winning rhetorical points it doesn’t really have any bearing on the underlying debate. Far more important is the extent to which the bump stock ban that happened under the Trump administration supports MartinLane’s larger statement > [@Will this election also be decided by the perverse American fetish for GUNS?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-this-election-also-be-decided-by-the-perverse-american-fetish-for-guns/840259/192): > > Keeping Trump in office does not protect gun ownership by any stretch of the imagination. Trump has demonstrated that he is the most anti-gun president we’ve had in a long time; even more so than Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/5 "2019-09-19T20:44:38Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Wait, people have decided to declare things that are obviously not firearms, to be firearms? Yes they have. It has been happening since 1934. See here; [National Firearms Act - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) > [@begbert2](#): > > If I declare that Twinkies are firearms, will they too become protected by the second amendment? Nope, doesn’t work that way. You need to convince your Congresscritter to sponsor a bill defining twinkies as guns, or get the president to change the CFR’s. If protected by the 2nd Amendment you mean that outright bans, high taxes and allowing the local sheriff to prohibit possession based on any criteria including race are allowed, then yes, they would be protected. ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/6 "2019-09-19T20:50:04Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Its a question of Semantics. Interesting that you would put it that way. I define semantics as, “the meaning of a word, sentence, or text”. The CFR’s are very clear on the matter of bump stocks being defined as firearms. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > No Bump stocks and silencers aren’t guns and so in a literal sense the statement that “Trump grabbed more guns” is incorrect. How do you define guns and why does it conflict with the CFR definition? > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You can argue back and forth about which interpretation is the “correct” one, but in the end its all just boils down to a matter of opinion, … I think the people who have been arrested for violating the bump stock ban would not agree with this part. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/7 "2019-09-19T20:50:05Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You can argue back and forth about which interpretation is the “correct” one, but in the end its all just boils down to a matter of opinion, or at best supports an accusation of sloppy use of language. Outside of winning rhetorical points it doesn’t really have any bearing on the underlying debate. Far more important is the extent to which the bump stock ban that happened under the Trump administration supports MartinLane’s larger statement This thread isn’t about any “larger statement” or any underlying debate. I am asking if bump stocks and silencers are firearms in and of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/8 "2019-09-19T20:56:23Z")
> [@MartinLane](#): > > You are wrong. The link to the CFR I posted says you are wrong. > [27 CFR § 447.11 - Meaning of terms. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/447.11) That’s a rather _tortured_ reading. The definition you cite clearly refers to firearms and includes “bump-stock-type” devices, rather than bump-stocks themselves. Your cite is more along the lines that adding a bump-stock (or other device) does not magically turn a firearm into a non-firearm. It does not make those sub-components firearms themselves. Further, your cite occurs under the section defining _machineguns_ as a subset of _firearms_. The definition for _firearm_ includes sub-components So, no, bump stocks are not by themselves firearms by your own cite. > [@MartinLane](#): > > It has been happening since 1934. See here; [National Firearms Act - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) Again a tortured reading. It regulates firearm components but does not magically define those components to be firearms themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/9 "2019-09-19T21:02:44Z")
Or, rather, I should say, it defines them as ‘firearms’ for purposes of the Act but, yeah, good luck advertising a “firearm” and selling somebody a suppressor. They may have something to say about that. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/10 "2019-09-19T21:02:45Z")
So if I’m understanding the situation, under the NFA lots of things that are definitely not guns are incorrectly classified guns in order to push them into one regulatory category or another. This is 100% a convenient fiction maintained for regulatory purposes. It in no way effects the actual meaning of the word “gun”, which is a common english word, not a NFA technical term. Thus, regardless of the regulatory terminology, bump stocks cheerfully continue to not be guns, and calling the seizure and destruction of them “gun grabbing” is silly and wrong. I believe that’s a fair assessment of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/11 "2019-09-19T21:03:48Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The definition you cite clearly refers to firearms and includes “bump-stock-type” devices, rather than bump-stocks themselves. Your cite is more along the lines that adding a bump-stock (or other device) does not magically turn a firearm into a non-firearm. It does not make those sub-components firearms themselves. > > Further, your cite occurs under the section defining _machineguns_ as a subset of _firearms_. The definition for _firearm_ includes sub-components > > So, no, bump stocks are not by themselves firearms by your own cite. Actually it says in part; > [@](#): > > The term “machinegun” includes a bump-stock-type device A bump stock type device is actually a bump stock. This means it is a machine gun and therefore a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/12 "2019-09-19T21:06:04Z")
> [@MartinLane](#): > > Actually it says in part; > > This means it is a machine gun and therefore a firearm. No, that sentence means that they’re using the term “machinegun” (no space) as a technical term, and that they’re saying that the non-firearms in question will be lumped in under the technical term. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/13 "2019-09-19T21:06:38Z")
Indeed so. It’s an argument based on a narrow, semantic definition that is used almost exclusively in a legal/legislative setting and almost never used that way colloquially. 1. Define toasted bread as a firearm. 2. Wait until somebody grabs your toast. 3. Call that person a gun-grabber ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/14 "2019-09-19T21:07:43Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Or, rather, I should say, it defines them as ‘firearms’ for purposes of the Act but, yeah, good luck advertising a “firearm” and selling somebody a suppressor. They may have something to say about that. How do you define a firearm? Does it include anything that shoots a projectile? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/15 "2019-09-19T21:11:33Z")
> **[Definition of FIREARM](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm)** > > a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms… See the full definition So, not slingshots. ---
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/16 "2019-09-19T21:19:45Z")
A device that uses a self-contained cartridge to contain a chemical based explosion used to propel projectiles down a barrel a cartridge consists of a brass casing, containing the primer (impact based explosive) that ignites a propellant charge, causing an increase in pressure inside the casing, used to propel pa projectile down a barrel A shotgun shell is the same concept, primer initiates a propellant burn to propel a wad of pellets down the barrel Black Powder firearms are not legally considered firearms because the components are not self-contained in a cartridge and must be hand-loaded into the device; drop the powder charge down the barrel and ram it down, take a projectile and ram it down the barrel onto the powder charge, then add powder to the pan (flintlock), or put in a percussion cap (caplock), or put in a 209 shotgun primer (primer fired), then fire this must be done for every shot, and the barrel cleaned after each (or every other) shot ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/17 "2019-09-19T21:28:03Z")
As above. You can probably re-work things to include black powder, but the ‘fire’ part is kind of important (sorry to slingshot and archery enthusiasts). ---
**Author:** ![MartinLane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f17d59/32.png) [@MartinLane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MartinLane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/18 "2019-09-19T21:29:25Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > A device that uses a self-contained cartridge to contain a chemical based explosion used to propel projectiles down a barrel Why define it this way? It does not match the title 18 chapter 44 definition. You would not include a rifle using caseless ammo in your definition? > [@MacTech](#): > > Black Powder firearms are not legally considered firearms because the components are not self-contained in a cartridge and must be hand-loaded into the device; drop the powder charge down the barrel and ram it down, take a projectile and ram it down the barrel onto the powder charge, then add powder to the pan (flintlock), or put in a percussion cap (caplock), or put in a 209 shotgun primer (primer fired), then fire > this must be done for every shot, and the barrel cleaned after each (or every other) shot I think you’re actually referring to muzzle loaded firearms; they are classified as antique firearms. There were plenty of cartridge guns loaded with black powder; they are legally firearms in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/19 "2019-09-19T22:36:08Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Indeed so. > > It’s an argument based on a narrow, semantic definition that is used almost exclusively in a legal/legislative setting and almost never used that way colloquially. > > 1. Define toasted bread as a firearm. > 2. Wait until somebody grabs your toast. > 3. Call that person a gun-grabber Can they also define a firearm as toasted bread, and then make toasted bread illegal? Breakfast foods are not protected by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522/20 "2019-09-19T22:46:21Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Can they also define a firearm as toasted bread, and then make toasted bread illegal? Breakfast foods are not protected by the Constitution. I’m pretty sure nobody would be fooled. And hey, I’m vaguely gathering that bump stocks _were_ grabbed, despite being classified as "machinegun"s! Almost as if nobody (well, nobody official) was fooled there either. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-bumpstocks-and-silencers-firearms-in-and-of-themselves/840522.md?page=2)