Are bumpstocks and silencers firearms in and of themselves?

[MartinLane]

@SamuelA

Hmm? You can’t order the barrel for a machinegun? Are you sure about this?

Because you could have an M16, registered prior to 1986, and you could, as I understand it, order replacement parts for anything but the receiver itself. (which isn’t really a wear item)

I understand that you can order linked ammo openly. The main difficulty to me sounds like that the manufacturers might refuse to sell you parts. For instance, will GE sell a civilian the parts for their miniguns?

I should have been more clear. While you can buy the receiver from a dealer and buy everything else online without controls, the same is not always true for NFA firearms.

If I have an AR-15 rifle then buy a short barrel for it, I better also have a tax stamp for an SBR or a AR-15 pistol to use the barrel on. Otherwise this could be constructive possession of a contraband NFA firearm.

I also need ATF authorization to buy an auto sear.

I cannot make parts for a silencer until I have the approved tax stamp or FFL/SOT.

[scr4]

If there was a chemical that was no effect by itself, but reacts with ethyl alcohol to form a psychoactive drug - would it be wrong to regulate that chemical as a drug?

[Great_Antibob]

@scr4

If there was a chemical that was no effect by itself, but reacts with ethyl alcohol to form a psychoactive drug - would it be wrong to regulate that chemical as a drug?

That’s a separate debate.

There are those claiming in this thread that the chemical that has no effect by itself should be, by itself, considered psychoactive due to a semantics argument. And this is the main debate in this thread. Indeed, it’s in the title itself.

That’s an entirely separate debate from how much regulation the separate components of a psychoactive compound should receive, which isn’t really being directly debated in this thread.

[SamuelA]

@Great_Antibob

That’s a separate debate.

There are those claiming in this thread that the chemical that has no effect by itself should be, by itself, considered psychoactive due to a semantics argument. And this is the main debate in this thread. Indeed, it’s in the title itself.

That’s an entirely separate debate from how much regulation the separate components of a psychoactive compound should receive, which isn’t really being directly debated in this thread.

I think everyone, including the ATF, knows a firearm component isn’t a firearm in itself. But they have decided that instead of trying to track everything, they will just focus on essential parts and leave everything else mostly unregulated. Given they have to police the entire USA, and have finite money and resources, this may very well be a reasonable approach.

And so they have defined a component to be something it isn’t. In the same way, they have defined sex with a person under a certain age is rape, even if the legislators who wrote the law willingly had sex before that age, and even if the ‘rape victim’ is just as willing as the legislators who wrote the law were.

[Abatis]

I can envision ATF raids on all the office supply stores; jeez, I personally own hundreds of these “firearms”, sitting in my kitchen junk drawer. I guess I should at least move them to my safe, given their dire threat to public safety.

Rapid manual trigger manipulation (Rubber Band Assisted)

[pkbites]

@MartinLane

The point I’ve been trying to make is that legally a silencer and bump stock are firearms. Trump used legal means to have them banned.

No he didn’t. He circumvented Congress and ordered a government agency to make something illegal even though for decades that agency certified that such devices were NOT machine guns. Saying something is something it’s not just because the President wants it that way is not how things are done under “legal means”.

The ATF did not and does not have the authority to issue such a legislative rule and the President does not have the legal power to give them that authority.

[Slash1972]

@pkbites

The ATF did not and does not have the authority to issue such a legislative rule and the President does not have the legal power to give them that authority.

That article seems like someone’s interpretation of what ATF said. Do you have a link to what the ATF actually said?

[pkbites]

@Slash1972

That article seems like someone’s interpretation of what ATF said. Do you have a link to what the ATF actually said?

You don’t really think the ATF is going to post on their website “we are going to do something we have no authority to do”, do you?

What they said is available in the court briefs. I’ll check to see if I can link to them.