The 30 day comment period is open.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... en-comment
https://www.gunownersamerica.com/atf-sp ... @gmail.com
https://youtu.be/IMw0g7m8IVE
Re: ATF Reg Change - 'Rate Increasing Devices'
2Federal Register - ATF request for information in advance of proposing a new rule.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-1 ... -27898.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-1 ... -27898.pdf
This ANPRM is the initial step in a regulatory process to interpret the definition of machinegun to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. If, in a subsequent rulemaking, the definition of machinegun under section 5845(b) is interpreted to include certain bump stock devices, ATF would then have a basis to re-examine its prior classification and rulings.
ATF "rate of fire" "enhancement" regs proposed
3No doubt most here hate Farago, but the included video includes "former ATF Firearms Tech Branch Chief Rick Vasquez."
ATF Bump Fire Stock Regulation:
This kind of thing is a classic example of why people who otherwise could not care less about bump stocks have a problem with the imposition of a ban supposedly targeting them.
ATF's RFC on a proposal to ban/NFA bump stocks.
Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices
ATF Bump Fire Stock Regulation:
In the video below, former ATF Firearms Tech Branch Chief Rick Vasquez sounds the alarm on the Bureau’s soon-to-be-released bump fire stock ban. As the Military Arms Channel’s Tim Harmsen discovered, the new regs are set to outlaw “any device that enhances the rate of fire.” Say goodbye to competition triggers. It gets worse . . .
Not sure a piece of constitutional text can be "appalled," but the article goes on to place blame on everyone's favorite backstabbing lobbying organization.As Mr. Vasquez points out, to make this work, the ATF has to create a legally acceptable firing rate. The rate would set a common baseline across rifles and platforms, above which enhancements could not go.
The Second Amendment is appalled. Not to mention that the ATF “rules” would be an ed-run around the legislative process. And then there’s the Miculek problem . . .
This kind of thing is a classic example of why people who otherwise could not care less about bump stocks have a problem with the imposition of a ban supposedly targeting them.
ATF's RFC on a proposal to ban/NFA bump stocks.
Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ