FLASHBACK: Obama Administration Signed Off On The Use of Bump Stocks in 2010

[Tom B]

This is correct.

Bump stocks were not "approved" by the ATF, the ATF said the did not have the authority to regulate them under current law.

So many republicans talk about fake news, but are getting their information from poorly vetted sources. No wonder the Republican Party is such a mess right now. Half of them are misinformed.

Difference without a distinction.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

We are using the term "approved" as in "allowed to be sold without any special conditions."

 

[UsualName]

Difference without a distinction.

No there is a distinct difference between not being able to stop the sale of bump stocks and being able to stop the sale of bump stocks.

As a matter of fact it is probably as clear of a distinction as you will ever find in life.

 

[UsualName]

We are using the term "approved" as in "allowed to be sold without any special conditions."

Under what law was/is the ATF allowed to regulate bump stocks?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Under what law was/is the ATF allowed to regulate bump stocks?

Apparently,they decided they had no jurisdiction to regulate it because of how they chose to characterize the item. I haven't researched the details but your interpretation seems reasonable. We are just using language a little more loosely. They could have interpreted the device as a modification that allowed full auto fire and then they would have had jurisdiction, at least as I understand it.

 

[Tom B]

No there is a distinct difference between not being able to stop the sale of bump stocks and being able to stop the sale of bump stocks.

As a matter of fact it is probably as clear of a distinction as you will ever find in life.

The ATF made the WRONG judgment. A gun part that changes a semi auto to almost a fully automatic rifle is their jurisdiction. That is IS the point. BTW, this was the same ATF that thought it was in their jurisdiction to allow illegal arm sales to drug cartels.

 

[piezoe]

Apparently,they decided they had no jurisdiction to regulate it because of how they chose to characterize the item. I haven't researched the details but your interpretation seems reasonable. We are just using language a little more loosely. They could have interpreted the device as a modification that allowed full auto fire and then they would have had jurisdiction, at least as I understand it.

Thank you for clearing that up. I now see where you were going with your argument.

 

[Tom B]

you probably missed a previous post where is was explained that the BATFE determined it did not have legal authority to regulate bump stocks. Therefore it could neither have approved nor banned them. Legislation that would give BATF authority over bump stocks is being considered right now, this very moment!

It could have just as easily determined that it had jurisdiction.

 

[Tom B]

Y

Apparently what hasn't sunk in yet is that while it is an issue of definition, the BATFE apparently does not feel free, nor should it, to redefine what is obviously a rifle part or gun part as a rifle or a gun, anymore than they would, or should, feel free to redefine a fireplace poker as a rifle.

You mean like DACA.