# How is the bump stock ban supported by law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 27, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483 "2019-01-27T14:20:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/21 "2019-01-28T15:50:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … So the argument \*against \*the ban is based on, well, what exactly? That it’s not legal. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/22 "2019-01-28T15:57:49Z")
To my (gun-ignorant) ear, this really sounds like a distinction without a difference. It would be like someone using ammonium nitrate fertilizer for explosive-bomb purposes, but claiming that he’s not buying explosives because it’s not a “true” explosive like TNT or dynamite. Sure, but the purpose is the same. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/23 "2019-01-28T15:59:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nor is self-defense, nor hunting, nor target shooting. So the argument \*against \*the ban is based on, well, what exactly? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That it’s not legal. I thought it was legal if this President does it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/24 "2019-01-28T16:07:00Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I thought it was legal if this President does it. Yes, just like the first two travel bans, everything the President does just gets a rubber-stamp of approval from the courts, right? :rolleyes: The ATF itself spent years telling everyone they didn’t have the authority to do this. Now they’ve changed their minds, but the law hasn’t changed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/25 "2019-01-28T16:07:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That it’s not legal. Restating the question. Now how about a \*substantive \*answer? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/26 "2019-01-28T16:17:09Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is the very same one I cited in the OP. Here is the new rule: > > [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf) > > They do their best to say that a “single function” of a trigger is equivalent to a “single pull” of a trigger but it is hamfisted at best. Nothing in the statute requires each trigger function to be purposefully or manually initiated. If it only discharges a single round with each “function” of the trigger, not the shooter, the trigger, then it does not meet the definition of a machine gun under the law. Ah, gotcha. Well, good luck with that. And if the nation had gone with the [lefties](https://perlmutter.house.gov/uploadedfiles/letter_to_president_trump_re_banning_bump_stocks.pdf) plan for this issue, you’d be cool with that? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/27 "2019-01-28T16:30:46Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Am I missing something obvious? Has Trump enacted a ban that he knows will obviously and clearly fail in court? First of all, Trump barely knows anything “obviously and clearly.” Secondly, I don’t think it’s obvious or clear how SCOTUS will decide. Nobody does. This isn’t a complicated issue to understand. The law defined a trigger and banned automatic fire based on that trigger definition, and some jabronies figured out how to get around the law. You’re right, of course, that the “correct” way to fix this is to clarify the law, but I don’t share your assessment that this would pass congress easily. I don’t think you understand how aggressive the “not one inch” crowd is. I’ve seen sooo many people declare how idiotic bump stops are and yet defend their sale on ideological (as opposed to legal) grounds in the same breath. Despite being simple to understand, the resolution isn’t clear. I think both sides have a point – the intent of the law is clear, and bump stocks violate that intent. A small tweak to the understanding of the phrase “single function” is all that’s required to bring the manufacturers back into compliance with the intent of the automatic weapons ban. Done and done. At the same time, small tweaks to the understanding of common phrases need to be addressed with readily available constitutional checks on power. So let it go to the courts and we’ll see what shakes out. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/28 "2019-01-28T16:50:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Restating the question. Now how about a \*substantive \*answer? Here is how [the ATF described it in their 2010 letter to SlideFire](http://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ATF-bump-fire-letter-2010.pdf): > [@](#): > > … The FTB evaluation confirmed that the submitted stock (see enclosed photo) does attach to the rear of an AR-15 type rifle which has been fitted with a sliding shoulder-stock type buffer-tube assembly. The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the “bump-stock” is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act … That’s a long-winded way of saying the ATF said it wasn’t a machine gun before they said it was a machine gun. This goes way beyond the ATF’s routine torturing of the English language. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/29 "2019-01-28T17:45:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This goes way beyond the ATF’s routine torturing of the English language. Yes, it seems this is another one of those Trump claims of “Mexico is going to pay for the wall.” Should the courts strike down this regulation, we might hear more Trump supporters questioning his critics of why anyone ever believed that Trump would do what he said he would do. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/30 "2019-01-28T18:41:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, just like the first two travel bans, everything the President does just gets a rubber-stamp of approval from the courts, right? :rolleyes: Which brings an interesting point to my brain; is this the first time most liberals will actually be hoping he prevails? If he doesn’t does it show our fear of his heavily influencing the court was a little more extreme than the reality? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/31 "2019-01-28T18:59:45Z")
> [@kopek](#): > > Which brings an interesting point to my brain; is this the first time most liberals will actually be hoping he prevails? … Possibly. > [@kopek](#): > > … If he doesn’t does it show our fear of his heavily influencing the court was a little more extreme than the reality? If the bump stock ban stands, it’s because the written words that compose our laws are essentially meaningless now, and it’s just whatever the hell the judges feel like. Any rational interpretation of the law should see it struck down. The ATF itself long understood this. Hell Dianne Feinstein even understands it, and she’s nuttier than a five-pound fruitcake. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/32 "2019-01-28T22:09:49Z")
The BATFE was asked by the manufacturer to evaluate the “bump-stock”, and it was the BATFE who found/decided that the “bump-stock” would not be regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act, or the National Firearms Act. The “bump-stock” could then be sold over the counter because the BATFE said it could. ---
**Author:** ![mixdenny](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mixdenny/32/2962_2.png) [@mixdenny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mixdenny)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/33 "2019-01-29T00:04:00Z")
> [@ZonexandScout](#): > > I can’t help but be reminded of all those Westerns in which the gunslinger holds the trigger of his revolver and fans the hammer to fire rapidly (but accurately). Mattel even made the “Fanner 50” toy revolver to allow all of us kids to do the same thing. > > It’s sounding to me like this would make those revolvers automatic weapons, since there’s no separate pull of the trigger after each shot is fired. > > Just saying… That’s a very interesting observation. And other designs do that as well. We used to fire our old pump .22 rifle by holding down the trigger (a single pull) and operating the pump over and over. It was extremely fast firing and judging by watching the water we usually shot at - controllable to a fair degree. Some lever actions did it also like the Rifleman’s carbine although that one had a screw installed to trip the trigger each time. But it would still operate that way with one trigger pull. The show rifle was modified so the trigger finger did not get injured. The more modern versions of these old guns have a disconnector in the design and no longer operate that way. Dennis ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/34 "2019-01-29T01:19:50Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The BATFE was asked by the manufacturer to evaluate the “bump-stock”, and it was the BATFE who found/decided that the “bump-stock” would not be regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act, or the National Firearms Act. The “bump-stock” could then be sold over the counter because the BATFE said it could. Trump changes his mind every few words yet you don’t have a problem with that. Why is it a bad thing if the BATFE changes it’s mind every nine years? ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/35 "2019-01-29T16:41:09Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Why is it a bad thing if the BATFE changes it’s mind every nine years? Because of the confusion and complications it brings on; such as this. The one that I always had to live with was the “curio” designation for some handguns and firearms made after 1898. The pieces on that list did not need to be registered but the list was constantly changing with individual ones being added and removed. Some were obvious; the original .45acp Lugers; but there were a lot of other Luger models (in shooting condition) that were quite affordable. This year it doesn’t need registered, the next three years it does, the year after that not. I just went ahead and registered everything even if it was on the current list. But it was a pain in the arse and one of the reasons I always felt the entire agency should be disbanded and something new created from scratch. Or raise their restrictions from the level of regulation to law making them harder to invent and/or change. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/36 "2019-01-29T22:17:30Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Trump changes his mind every few words yet you don’t have a problem with that. Why is it a bad thing if the BATFE changes it’s mind every nine years? I don’t? Have ewe and eye discussed that particular issue, or are you relying on something you were told by Hillary-worshipping Democrats? I’m of the opinion that the BATFE should stop making half-assed decisions which lead to such debacles as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and not regulating these so-called “bump stocks” correctly. That, plus the fact that elected Democrats are once again pushing for firearm confiscations in which the BATFE would take an active part, could lead to the illegal destruction of dozens of firearms, and the incarceration of thousands of law-abiding citizens, before the BATFE could be stopped. Why shouldn’t the IRS be arbitrarily allowed to audit your taxes as they see fit? Do you remember all of those deductions you were legally allowed to take yesterday? Well, your friendly, neighborhood, government tax collector just rewrote his own departments rules, and those deductions are no longer allowed. Ask them again tomorrow, they may have changed their minds. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/37 "2019-01-29T22:37:18Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Trump changes his mind every few words yet you don’t have a problem with that. Why is it a bad thing if the BATFE changes it’s mind every nine years? Trump’s shortcomings are a separate problem. He’ll be going away in a few years, no matter what. BATFE ain’t going no fucking where and they have a history of racism, violence, and abuse of their regulatory power. They, more than most alphabet agencies, need to be kept on a short leash. Ideally, they would be reduced to a just a tax collection agency with no armed agents or powers of arrest. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/38 "2019-01-31T17:43:09Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > First of all, Trump barely knows anything “obviously and clearly.” Secondly, I don’t think it’s obvious or clear how SCOTUS will decide. Nobody does. > > This isn’t a complicated issue to understand. The law defined a trigger and banned automatic fire based on that trigger definition, and some jabronies figured out how to get around the law. You’re right, of course, that the “correct” way to fix this is to clarify the law, but I don’t share your assessment that this would pass congress easily. I don’t think you understand how aggressive the “not one inch” crowd is. I’ve seen sooo many people declare how idiotic bump stops are and yet defend their sale on ideological (as opposed to legal) grounds in the same breath. > > Despite being simple to understand, the resolution isn’t clear. I think both sides have a point – the intent of the law is clear, and bump stocks violate that intent. A small tweak to the understanding of the phrase “single function” is all that’s required to bring the manufacturers back into compliance with the intent of the automatic weapons ban. Done and done. At the same time, small tweaks to the understanding of common phrases need to be addressed with readily available constitutional checks on power. So let it go to the courts and we’ll see what shakes out. But as I have said, well settled doctrine on statutory construction states that you first look at the plain text of the law and if, and only if, the text is ambiguous do you then go to other methods such as discerning legislative intent. A judge looking at this case has one job. He or she asks “Does a bump stock allow automatic fire with a single function of the trigger?” Answer: No it does not. It allows multiple functions of the trigger to occur mostly automatically, therefore it does not meet the definition of a machine gun under U.S. law. Now, if the judge wanted to insert some dicta about legislative intent, I am sure that any judge would agree that Congress would have wanted to outlaw devices that act in this fashion. But the important point is that they did not. Legislative drafting is important in a criminal law because it puts the average person on notice as to what conduct is permitted and what conduct could land him in federal prison for 10 years. The discovery of loopholes in the law are important because it allows the legislative body to go back, reassert their intent, and put the public on notice as to the prohibited conduct. Testing the scope of any law is important as it reclaims any freedom that may be lost by poorly drafted statutes. Anytime I talk about this, I am reminded about how I laugh at every time I see a sign in an elevator that says “No smoking or the holding of lit tobacco products permitted in this elevator.” You just know that the latter part was added because some guy, and you know it was a guy, smoked a cigar until he got on the elevator and just held it in his hand until he got off on his floor. When confronted, he likely pointed out that at no time in the elevator did he “smoke” the cigar, but merely held it in his hand. The response was proper. Instead of having a U.S. Supreme Court case on the definition of “smoking” the appropriate body amended the law and now the notice tells anyone who would try to game the law that you cannot do what the first guy did. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/39 "2019-01-31T19:31:56Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Anytime I talk about this, I am reminded about how I laugh at every time I see a sign in an elevator that says “No smoking or the holding of lit tobacco products permitted in this elevator.” > > You just know that the latter part was added because some guy, and you know it was a guy, smoked a cigar until he got on the elevator and just held it in his hand until he got off on his floor. When confronted, he likely pointed out that at no time in the elevator did he “smoke” the cigar, but merely held it in his hand. > > The response was proper. Instead of having a U.S. Supreme Court case on the definition of “smoking” the appropriate body amended the law and now the notice tells anyone who would try to game the law that you cannot do what the first guy did. Problem solved. Yeah? What if I throw my lit cigarette into the elevator, and then don’t touch it while riding to another floor, and then step out of the elevator and reach in and grab it off the floor. Is that “smoking” or “holding a lit tobacco product”? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483/40 "2019-01-31T19:51:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > But as I have said, well settled doctrine on statutory construction states that you first look at the plain text of the law and if, and only if, the text is ambiguous do you then go to other methods such as discerning legislative intent. And my response would be that the invention of bump stocks has created an ambiguity in the plain reading of the text. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-the-bump-stock-ban-supported-by-law/828483.md?page=3)