ATF Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices

Today the ATF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Bump-Stock-Type Devices. The comment period is open for 90 days, making comments due on or before June 27, 2018.

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 7.09.50 AM

The proposed rule would alter the definition of a machine gun in the regulations pertaining to the National Firearms Act (27 C.F.R. § 479.1, et seq.), the Gun Control Act (27 C.F.R. § 478.1, et seq.), and the Arms Export Control Act (27 C.F.R. § 447.1, et seq.).

Currently, the definition of a machine gun (in the GCA and NFA regulations) is

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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This change would alter the definition to include the following language

For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger. The term “machine gun” includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

If you are interested in submitting a comment in opposition to the proposed rule, you may do so by visiting and searching the docket “ATF 2017R-22”. (Updated with link: If you wish to stay up to date on issues relating to this infringement of our rights, join the Facebook page Americans Opposed to ATF 2017R-22, where we will post updates and our submitted comments, as they become available. (Make sure to select “See First” from the Following tab to ensure that you see all of the posts)

All comments must reference the docket number ATF 2017R-22, be legible, and 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.

Firearms Policy Coalition has retained Joshua Prince and myself to draft a comment in opposition on their behalf. To learn more visit: and Americans Opposes to ATF 2017R-22

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.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

20 responses to “ATF Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RE: Bump-Stock-Type Devices

  1. uponroof

    Is there any hope of grandfathering as ‘legal’ (in need of registering) those bought before the rule change?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Shane Mckeirnan

    Does this mean my finger will be subjected to federal law under the Hughes amendment. This could get interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Buckman Tavern

    Is this not the sole power of Congress ?
    BATF , operating under ‘ color of law ‘ based on assumed authority given by Sec. of Treasury. Many name changes since prohibition ended in 1935 where ATF was formerly , B.I.R. and F.A.A. ( bureau internal revenue + federal alcohol admin. )

    “Under the Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1940 which appears at 5 United States Code Service 903, the Federal Alcohol Administration and offices of members and Administrators thereof were abolished and their functions directed to be administered under direction and supervision of Secretary of Treasury through Bureau of Internal Revenue. We found this history in all of the older editions of 27 USC, Section 201. It has been removed from current editions. Only two Bureaus of Internal Revenue have ever existed. One in the Philippines and another in Puerto Rico. Events that have transpired tell us that the Federal Alcohol Administration was absorbed by the Puerto Rico Trust # 62 (Internal Revenue).

    Much more here —

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Justin Becker

    Personally, I do not like bump-stocks. However, I see this as a slippery slope that paved the way to ban our weapons one piece at a time. Does this also apply to binary fire systems?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mark S

    So what would happen to existing bump stocks in circulation if this goes through? I didn’t see the full proposal uploaded yet.
    —Would they need s/n engraved, then registered with $200 tax ( for a $150 stock?)
    —Would registration be free just to get them on the NFA registry?
    —I know these may be unpopular with general public and there is political pressure to regulate. If they *have* to be regulated, could they be classified as AOW so the tax is only $5? Any legal justification for this?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Dwo888

    I posted this on the site, but it is a waste of time. The BATFE told their bosses they do not have authority to regulate this but their bosses overrode them and forced them to publish this. I hope they remember this if the appeals courts tosses this out later.
    “This regulation is not valid. To ban “Bump Stocks” Congress and the Senate need to pass a bill and the President sign it, or veto it and then 3/4 majority of both Houses vote to override it.
    The definition in the law is “One action of the trigger”. Bump firing can be done WITHOUT any device at all. BATFE did exclude a device that used a spring before but current stocks do not include a spring as any sort of “Conversion Device”. The Congress passed regulations to include Open Bolt guns, DIAS’s, and other conversion devices (Lighting Links, etc.) into WRITTEN LAW to fix gaps in the law people were trying to use as excuses to have guns that were really machineguns in the 1980’s.
    Any semiautomatic firearm can be used in a way to create a rapid, mostly unaimed burst(s) of fire. Misuse by one person should not allow the creation of new law because lawmakers do not have the guts to introduce the bill and vote on it with a roll call vote.
    It is NOT the job of BATFE Technical Division or any regulatory agency to create law. the BATF in the 1980’s petitioned Congress to change the law to cover conversion devices and open bolt guns when they became a problem. The law passed and is enforced to this day. Just because of political pressure previous evaluations by BATFE Technical Division that the DO NOT have authority to regulate this are shoved aside and this change is being made.
    There is a good chance this will get tossed out in the future by the courts and any criminal convictions from the reinterpretation could be tossed out also. Both Houses need to do their job and change the law to include this definition under the NFA if they think it is necessary.
    Using the regulation writing authority of an agency because of political cowardice to avoid voting on a gun bill should not happen and I am sad that BATFE has had pressure put on it to do this. It is not legal and very poor precedent for all agencies that regulate under Federal law, not just the NFA statutes.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • uponroof

      Sound logic, thanks. I was wondering the same as a bump stock does not require finger movement only insertion into the trigger well. The way this new ‘definition’ is written it begs legitimate legal challenges, which may revert back to what you are suggesting… a new law, which in this mass hysteria environment is likely. I hope someone from Prince can weigh in on this and explain protocol or at least the time frame for such definition challenges. Further, hoping they likewise address the chances of having ‘pre ban’ bump stocks (if there will ever be such a thing) regulated or registered as AOW or etc. Today they sell on Gunbroker for $50 in anticipation of obsolescence (rather than $200-250 originally). But is their extinction a sure thing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Geoff

        Never used one, have you?
        You finger is moving forward and back against the trigger as the stock slides because your finger is on the stock.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dwo888

        I think the 5th Amendment takings WITHOUT compensation has to be ruled on. If that is legal then the Feds can say tomorrow all cars pre-1999 pollute to much and make them illegal. Or anything else.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Geoff

    So stupid. It is STILL multiple pulls of the trigger.
    You don’t even NEED a bumpstock.
    They want to make semi-auto rifles illegal.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. uponroof

    In other words, you do not have to pull the trigger (“single pull of trigger”) to get the action started.. you pull the stock to fire the first round (finger never moves). Hey splitting atoms here but why not… Make them earn it, and if they are too dangerous for unregulated use make the new language strong enough to perform as intended.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Geoff

      Splitting atoms. I like that.
      But the point being, even if your finger is not moving, your finger is STILL activating the trigger each and every time the rifle fires.
      As in my previous video posting from youtube.
      He is using his thumb to immobilize his trigger finger.
      Would that make his hand a “machine gun”?
      I think a really good legal team could shoot down this proposed regulation.
      Pun intended.
      Not wanting to get into and argument or semantics.
      I think the DoJ and ATF are wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Geoff

      Just watched the video you posted.
      “CLIP”! Come on, MAGAZINE.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Gun parts not covered by a ban are just as capable and lethal as those that were.
    If you ban gun parts, fewer people will die with those gun parts.
    Just do not expect overall murder rates to change.
    After a shooting spree, liberals always want to take the guns & the gun parts away from the people who didn’t do it.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Geoff

    Anyway, with enough practice, you don’t need a bump stock.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s