Googling for “convicted of illegally possessing a short-barreled rifle”, I found this interesting discussion, which included a quote from a court case:
So it seems even the government would agree that someone in possession of multiple receivers would not automatically be in possession of a SBR just because they had some possible combination of parts that could be made into a SBR. The intent of the owner would matter.
Here is another article on the Kwan conviction that makes it even more clear that it is similar to the scenario I described:
Kwan owned two H&K pistols. It was perfectly legal to attach this stock to one of them, because it was already a registered Class 3 firearm, but not legal to attach it to the other semi-auto pistol. The stock was capable of physically being attached to either one, so the ATF charged him with possessing an unregistered SBR. That you “don’t see this as a big problem” is absolutely no comfort to me or Mr. Kwan.
You asked if it has happened before. The answer is that it has.
See my link above, this was reversed on appeal, thus re-enforcing the rules as discussed above. Can you find any more recent examples that would suggest the government is routinely trying to apply these rules improperly?
Banning bump fire stocks probably would not even need a law. The BATF generates ipso facto law just by writing a letter to an individual or company addressing an issue, or a memorandum for publication. If the matter is resolved in the letter, it is up to others to find this information, it is not generally published although collections of letters are periodically made available.
When the Slide Fire was submitted for review, it was not as though the company was asking for an exemption of some sort. They were just asking the BATF to confirm that the Slide Fire was already legal, as it still required the finger to press the trigger for each round fired. It has been a while since I have read that letter, but it is typical in these cases for the BATF writer to state, “in my opinion…”, leaving some wiggle room if needed.
To alter the basis of that ruling would, as I see it, require a completely new definition of “one squeeze, one shot”, a simple physical act. However, I think the BATF can single out any one product and issue a memorandum to change the item’s classification after some waiting, or amnesty period.
They did this with the Street Sweeper back in the early 1990s, which had been legal for 15 years or so. It did not break any specific laws, but the collection of parts - a high capacity shotgun with spring rotated magazine feed just looked dangerous.
I cannot recall what set off the BATF, but they finally said, “No. Hell, no.” and declared it a destructive device. The damn Street Sweeper was so clumsy to load (you had to disassemble the attached magazine, dump out the empty shells, reload the magazine, and wind up the spring) and bulky to carry that no criminal would want to use one anyway.
Back when I was shooting in 3 gun matches, I used a Baikal magazine fed shotgun. It used removable magazines with 6 rounds and could be swapped out as fast as you practiced to do. It could fire much, much faster then any Street Sweeper and is perfectly legal, as is the Kalashnikov version.
I switched to an FN with a conventional tube magazine. At the time it was the world’s fastest semi auto shotgun, you could empty the 6 round mag in less then 2 seconds. Today the Fostech makes that claim and can empty its 30 round drum in 8 seconds. Completely legal as opposed to the gawd awful Street Sweeper, but that is the power of the BATF.
I actually tried to bump fire the FN, but quit after 2 rounds as it was already climbing for the sky.
Want some more fun? Here is a double barreled AK “Gatling gun”, tell me that isn’t intimidating. And I have seem smaller caliber versions with 4 barrels. All legal as long as you do not motorize the hand crank.
“Reversed on appeal” costs time and money. It also assumes you had the money to spend on appeals. How many appeals can you afford to make before you give up and do what the BATFE/government wants?
It may surprise you, but consistency is not one of the government’s strong suits. Yes, in the Thompson Contender case, “the government” was made to acknowledge, via the courts, that they couldn’t convict people for possessing parts that might be assembled into an illegal configuration. That happened in 1992. And then, 15 years later, “the government” did it anyways, to Mr. Kwan.
That’s why the second article I linked to said “Both accusations blatantly disregarded ATF policy and established legal precedents.”
You might expect that the ATF agents would know about the ATF policies and established legal precedent, but you’d be wrong. The ATF is a collection of imbeciles, that regularly ruins people’s lives and livelihoods with their own contradictory rules and rulings. They’ve made so many convoluted rules and rulings, that they get confused by them regularly.
I gotta say, if you conservatives wanted to prove “this happens so vanishingly infrequently that it’s definitely not an actual problem that anyone needs to worry about”, then you’re doing a bangup job.
I certainly don’t claim to be an expert, or even aware of, every case the ATF brings. I don’t know how frequently it happens. Horatius’ original question was “Have they ever actually done that, though?”
I was answering that question. Yes, they’ve actually done that. The charges resulted in a conviction. The conviction was later overturned by an appeals court. The net effect was to thoroughly wreck Mr. Kwan’s life and livelihood. But you don’t think I should be concerned because I don’t know the frequency with which the government fucks up so badly that it effectively destroys the life of an innocent man? :dubious:
With all due respect, “an innocent man” is one guy. I’d wager that every single law in existence has, on its own power, fucked up the life of at least one single guy. This has led me to factor in width and breadth of impact when being concerned about the impact of things.
In a country that sells millions of guns and gun accessories every year, I don’t think finding one example in 15 years of the ATF screwing up in this way to be so “regular” as to require the repeal of a legal doctrine that, much more regularly, is applied in the way it is supposed to be applied.
If you want to moan about other rules the ATF has allegedly screwed up, go for it, but I stand by my conclusion that your original offer to swap this for banning bump stocks is a bad trade off.
Fine, let’s try another one (one that I think has a decent chance of becoming law):
We’ll make SlideFire stocks illegal / very tightly controlled in exchange for easing the restrictions on suppressors. Deal? There’s a good chance the NRA is going to offer Congressional Democrats a deal very close to that one.
“Inaccurate, dangerous, and at best a novelty”. Doesn’t that apply to bump stocks themselves? I’m no expert, but that was the gist I got from hearing about them over the last few days.
Cut down on what, exactly? How many crimes are actually committed with bump stocks in a given decade?
Why are you fixated on horse trading proposals, as though you (or gun owners generally) are owed concessions for some reason. You aren’t. You are owed what you can justify with facts and reason, just like everyone else.
When I hear someone turning to these negotiation tactics that would make bad used car salesmen blush, what I hear is that I have totally won on substance; but the other side is either trying to save face or trying to fuck me over for a reason I may not fully understand.
Hahahaha. Of course you don’t understand it, it’s simply a negotiation tactic, a compromise. Legislators do that all the time. A little for you, a little for me, a little more for you, a little more for me, and eventually we have a deal. No one get 100% of what they what, but 70% of what I want and 75% of what you want for sounds OK to me. At least it’s a step in the right direction, if bi-partisanship is what you hope for.
Do you know what tactic doesn’t work? Demanding 100% submission from the other side. You want to change the status quo, but you seem to be unwilling/unable to negotiate successfully? You don’t have the votes to get everything you want.
Horse trading of proposals is exactly how Congress works, inherently. The question is whether the proposed or simulated negotiation by any given random web poster is within the bounds of political reality. Congress loosening up on suppressors right now in some deal over bump stocks? I doubt it. It seems to me the more likely outcomes are a) Congress agrees to a relatively meaningless but ‘why not?’ ban on at least sale of factory made bump stocks, or b) anti-gun Congresspeople insist on adding other gun control measures the pro-gun side can’t go along with to stall it out and try to make the make the pro-guns look bad.
But in general a trade between things like suppressors and bump stocks is not so far from political reality. In contrast to the themes of some posters here like ‘if the pro gun people won’t go along with some stuff “folks” like us want and call “reasonable” then we’ll have to repeal the 2nd amendment’. That’s out to lunch, entirely divorced from political reality. There’s zero evidence of any general groundswell against gun rights because of mass shootings, in who actually gets elected to Congress. If anything the main political dynamic is stirring up more pro-gun feeling where the rubber hits the road in Congress* in reaction to the anti-gun expressions in the parts of the culture liberals dominate (media, entertainment etc), when these incidents happen.
*driven by fear of general election defeat for Democrats in Trump state/districts, and fear of primary defeats for Republicans.
Speaking abstractly, I’ve always thought horsetrading was bullshit and is bad politics. Pork is bad politics.
What bi-partisanship actually means is that the sides work together like adults debating and shaping individual laws. Where a consensus can be reached that everyone likes, or at least that a decent majority of people think is fair and tolerable.
This doesn’t work nowadays because republicans demand 100% submission from the other side.
Let me tell you, I’ve been involved in quite a few policy negotiations in government, and if you think that they look anything like what HD is approaching it as, you ought to stop watching House of Cards. Horse trading has its place - at the end of a process to seal a deal. It is not the basis of a deal in itself.
Besides, the proposal - aside having no substance behind it - is woefully out of touch with what seem to be the demands on both sides. From the D side, the best alternative to some kind of ban on these devices is to either pick off Republicans who can’t explain why the things shouldn’t be banned. Or maybe watch R’s form a circular firing squad as they bicker among themselves on whether to do anything that may displease their NRA masters. The downside of a tit for tat trade for D’s is they go home and look like sellouts to the NRA.
For R’s, if negotiations fall apart they probably shelve their silencer bill for a few months, and then maybe get it passed next summer when people have moved on. But then they also have a bunch of members who have generally spoken in favor of the ban who get to go home and explain why they can’t get anything done. Usually not so bad, but as R’s are very worried about midterm elections, quite a few R’s aren’t looking forward to taking that trip.
I don’t think a bump for silencer bill gets 60 votes in the Senate. The downside is too great for D’s, and quite a few R’s probably just want to get this issue behind them rather than fight a battle with rather few rewards and more risks.
Dynamics may change, of course, but since nobody can even attempt a rationale why banning these devices is bad policy, other than the OP’s “crackpipes should be legal” principle, is very telling of where the wind is blowing right now.
I agree. Bumps are a loser issue and I’d consider their days being numbered. There really isn’t a good reason for them, and unlike other cosmetic silliness, they actually change the function of a firearm. I wouldn’t object to their banning. Today is not the day machine guns will be legalized and the NFA repealed.
If there were some kind of trade proffered, I’d consider that a win. A straight banning is the expectation.