ATF to Publish Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Re: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices

EDIT 3: Publication date is now scheduled for 12/26/2017. Deadline for submissions would be Thursday, January 25, 2018.

EDIT 2: Document has been reposted. Link is working again.

EDIT: It appears the document has been removed “The Office of the Federal Register withdrew this document after it went on public inspection due to technical errors.” I’ll be keeping my eye for a repost.

ANPRM

Tomorrow, ATF will publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the application of the definition of machinegun to “Bump Fire” stocks and other similar devices. As many have feared, it appears that the regulatory agency is soliciting information to help draft a rule which may potentially lump bump fire stocks, binary triggers, etc., within the definition of machinegun.

Screen Shot 2017-12-21 at 11.24.47 AM

Comments are due thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Assuming that nothing goes awry with the publication tomorrow, that would mean any comment you wish to submit in opposition to this advance notice would need to be submitted by 11:59 PM on Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:59 PM on Thursday, January 25, 2018. While one might expect an extra day to be provided to place the deadline on a Monday, agency rules govern. ATF confirmed via telephone that the deadline was Sunday.

ATF is specifically seeking feedback from consumers regarding the following:

  1. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?
  2. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?
  3. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

The ATF has a broad range of questions for manufacturers including:

  1. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?
  2. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your gross receipts for calendar year 2018?
  3. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?
  4. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

The ATF asks retailers similar questions.

All comments must:

  1. reference docket number 2017R-22;
  2. be legible (I expect most submission will be done electronically); and
  3. include the commenter’s complete first and last name and full mailing address.

ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

If you’re a consumer, I suggest you submit a comment to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. For helpful hints on how to draft a comment, take a look at the information in the article I wrote for Recoil Web, although some of that information would be more applicable for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If you represent a manufacturer or a retailer and want to inquire about obtaining services for the drafting of a comment, please contact the office as soon as possible to ensure sufficient time to draft a comment.

 

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm
Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.
Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

14 responses to “ATF to Publish Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Re: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices

  1. Taylor Bibeau

    Say for instance they did determine/decide that such items were machine guns, do they open the registry for these items or do these items suddenly need to be destroyed or turned in? How exactly would such a thing be accomplished?

    Like

  2. Geoff

    K.I.S.S.
    If no more than one round fires while the trigger is held depressed, it isn’t a machine gun.
    Besides, Jerry Miculek can fire as fast a Slide Fire (bump fire) with just his trigger finger.
    So could I if I practice. You just need to learn the trigger reset.
    I can rapid fire at about 3 rounds per second. (180RPM) Or about 1/3 the rate of full auto. Eats up a LOT of ammo though.
    THIS is SILLY!
    The ATF has a broad range of questions for manufacturers including:
    “If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.”

    WAIT!
    LE and Military can ALREADY purchase (new) full auto machine guns. Why would they buy a $600 AR15 and a $200 Slide Fire? And manufacturers are licensed to produce them. M4 or M4A1 cost about $800.

    WE CAN’T buy any new machine guns, so simulation is the best we can get.
    All gun control laws since 1934 are unconstitutional, but nobody has the money to challenge them in a Liberal Democrat controlled Judicial system.
    (9th. and 4th. Circus Courts)

    Or as Peter Griffin says “This really grinds my gears”.

    Like

  3. Robert M. Miller

    I work for a federal agency doing regulatory analysis for rulemaking. This ANPR doesn’t quite ask for comments on whether bump fire stocks can and should be classified as machineguns. Rather, the questions in the ANPR are soliciting information that the agency needs to formulate their rule and to comply with numerous laws and executive orders. These laws include the Administrative Procedure Act, Congressional Review Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by SBREFA, the Paperwork Reduction Act as well as general cost-benefit analysis in accordance with OMB Circular A-4. At this point, the ANPR really isn’t soliciting opinions on whether they should or shouldn’t have this rule. And since there are no details of the rule, it’s difficult and fruitless to comment on it. What we CAN comment on are the costs and benefits of the likely rule. This can include, more generally, advantages or disadvantages. To oppose the rule, we’d like to list as many disadvantages and costs as possible, or diminish the benefits and advantages. The legality of the rule is a separate issue that we can discuss after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. KENT M BOGARD

    Most owners of Bumpfire stocks tire very quickly of the simulated auto fire and expense of dumping 650-700 rounds per minute.I see a great many of these (SlideFire) stocks returning to the market due to inflated pricing following recent trajic events.In respose to military and LE use…LE has indicated little or no interest and Military prefers 3 round burst to full auto.I believe Bumpfire stocks will lose interest in due course without any intervention.

    Like

  5. Pingback: SayUncle » Making it up as they go for political posturing

  6. Neither machine guns or semi automatic firearms are defined by how fast or slow they are able to empty a magazine! Bumpfire is a technical symptom of the semi automatic mode not a device. A fully automatic M16 can be “bump fired” while in the semi automatic mode. Most semi automatic firearms can be bump fired without the use of any device.

    Let us not forget that Democrat William J Hughes of NJ felt it best to eliminated the ability of lawful Americans to purchase new machine gun under the oversite of the ATF. That ban on new manufacture over inflated the cost of transferable machine guns. REPEAL THE HUGHES AMENDMENT!

    Like

  7. CMAC

    What happens if they open the registry for these, as it would mean the registry would then be open and allow new machine guns to be registered?

    Could this end up being a backdoor to opening the registry?

    Like

    • There is a senator (D) who has a bill in the works that would temporary reopen the NFA for “bump stock machine guns” to be added. If ATF comes back and says that bump fire stock meet the statutory definition of a machine gun, and this bill would be passed then have your form 1’s (AR15 stripped lowers) ready.

      Like

  8. Samuel Scarr

    Would/could the proposed changes in the BATFE Machine Gun classification be broad enough to include ANY rate increasing device (as stated in S1916 “Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act”)? Could this include things as simple as two stage triggers? Or is the changing in classification targeting binary-triggers, bump fire stocks, trigger cranks, etc? Has it not been stated yet? Sorry for my ignorance.

    As a concerned gun owner, what would be the best thing to do? I hear a TON of varying opinions and misinformation. Looking for some advice of where to call/write.

    Finally, as just a consumer when would it be worth it to comment? Maybe at a different phase? Thank you for your time guys. I would like to do my part.
    Would love to get some feed back and or help.

    Like

  9. Pingback: WLS 229 - Stomp - We Like Shooting

  10. Pingback: We Like Shooting 229 – Stomp

  11. Pingback: Major Pennsylvania Firearm Law Cases from 2017 | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s