ATF Publishes Bump Stock Ban
December 19, 2018
By my calculation, yesterday’s article urging skepticism regarding a recent bump stock memo allegedly distributed by the ATF had a shelf life of approximately twelve hours. Such is life when you’re covering the news, but it’s still remarkable to see how fast things turned.
Today, the ATF formally announced that it intends to criminalize possession of bump stocks – accessories that assist in the simulation of fully-automatic fire – as early as March 2019. By reclassifying the devices as machineguns, the agency’s rule change renders a previously-legal device (at least according to past ATF decisions) illegal for most users and imposes felony penalties for unregistered or unlicensed possession.
How exactly did we get here? It’s no secret that the shooter in Las Vegas last October used firearms equipped with bump stocks. Following that, folks throughout the nation, gun owners and anti-gunners alike, called upon the ATF to reassess the legality of the devices – and reassess they did.
The core of this change has to do with the ATF’s new stance that bump stocks use a single pull of the trigger to initiate an “automatic” firing sequence. To explain the decision, the ATF stated that the device “harnesses the recoil energy” of the firearm to facilitate continuous firing without moving the trigger finger. Under this view, a shooter performs a single action on the trigger (the initial pull) to fire multiple rounds. The National Firearms Act (NFA) defines machineguns as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Ergo, bump stocks, according to the ATF, are machineguns.
To support their case, the ATF called upon its past classification of the Akins Accelerator, a 10/22 stock kit that performed a similar function to the bump stock, but with different mechanics. Like bump stocks, the Akins Accelerator allowed the rifle’s action to move rearward in relation to a fixed stock. However, the Akins device featured springs within the butt of the stock unit that automatically pushed the action forward to reengage the shooter’s trigger finger. In contrast, bump stocks require shooters to manually pull forward on the weapon to reset the action and actuate the trigger. Past ATF approval of bump stocks relied on this key difference – that the absence of springs meant that the devices did not produce “automatic” fire.
Aside from an outright ban on bump stocks, the ATF’s rule change seeks a change to the interpretations of “automatic” and “single function of the trigger” as originally established by the NFA. With respect to the former, the ATF seeks to interpret “automatic” to mean “the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds.” They unironically note that this interpretation does not require “that the self-acting mechanism produces the firing sequence without any additional action by the shooter.” Second, the proposed interpretation of “single function of the trigger” is to treat the language as synonymous with “single pull of the trigger”, thus silently opening a path to ban accessories like Binary Triggers that treat trigger pull and release as separate functions.
A common response from gun owners is that this rule change constitutes a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment because owners will not be compensated for the stocks upon disposal. The ATF addresses this contention in the rule, but in short, it appears unlikely that invoking such a defense will be fruitful. By treating the stocks as contraband and the ban as in the public’s interest, the agency asserts wide authority to confiscate and dispose of the devices. Likewise, because the ATF does not intend to criminalize past possession, the department argues that the change does not violate Article I’s prohibition of ex post facto enforcement.
With a final rule now published, it should surprise no one that legal challenges are already lining up. The Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America have already filed federal lawsuits against the ban. The ATF was thorough in its response to concerns posed during the public comment period, so from what angle will these organizations attack this issue?
Having read through the document, it’s probable that the weakest portions relate to the ATF’s reinterpretation of vital NFA language and the fact that the department drew upon similar anecdotes and evidence to draw wholly different conclusions between 2008 and 2017. There’s also no reasonable way to argue that a system requiring user input, particularly to perform the core function of repositioning the firearm’s action, is “automatic”, “self-acting”, or in any way “self-regulating”.
With a general finish line now in place for this ban, expect to hear a lot more about it in the coming months.
An information security professional by day and gun blogger by night, Nathan started his firearms journey at 16 years old as a collector of C&R rifles. These days, you’re likely to find him shooting something a bit more modern – and usually equipped with a suppressor – but his passion for firearms with military heritage has never waned. Over the last five years, Nathan has written about a variety of firearms topics, including Second Amendment politics and gun and gear reviews. When he isn’t shooting or writing, Nathan nerds out over computers, 3D printing, and Star Wars.