Bump stocks are attachments for a semiautomatic firearm and do not convert the firearm into a machinegun. Understanding why a bump stock is not a machinegun is key to understanding the threat posed by bump stock bans. If a bump stock is redefined to be considered a machinegun, then ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS will also be regulatable as machineguns. Conservatives must understand that this is a bonus for the gun control lobby—not a mistake.
Machinegun—The term ‘machinegun’ means 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.
Bump Stock—A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’ With or without a bump stock, a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct ‘function of the trigger.’ All that a bump stock does is accelerate the rate of fire by causing these distinct ‘function[s]’ of the trigger to occur in rapid succession.
Why Did Gun owners Fight ATF’s Bump Stock Ban?
Prior to the bump stock ban in 2018, the ATF long agreed with gun owners, refusing to classify the devices as machineguns. This course reversal threatened millions of gun owners with criminal prosecution, prison time, and fines if they did not destroy or surrender their bump stocks while GOA and others sued to protect the Second Amendment.
As a result of a lawsuit brought against the ATF’s bump stock ban by Michael Cargill and building on GOA’s victory in our own lawsuit against the Bump Stock Ban, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cargill v. Garland that a bump stock was not a machinegun because it required a separate function of the trigger. Justice Thomas correctly wrote in the Court’s opinion, what gun owners know: a bump stock, although accelerates the rate of fire by continuously pressing a trigger in rapid succession, does not pass the NFA’s statutory text of a “single function of the trigger.”
As it turns out, all semiautomatic firearms can be bump fired without a bump stock. So, if ATF were able to change the statutory definition of machinegun to include bump stocks, it would have opened the door to a future President ordering ATF to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Thus, interpreting the definition of machinegun would not only ban a constitutionally protected firearm accessory, but it would also have laid the predicate for future gun bans in violation of the Constitution.
Legislative Bump Stock Bans Are Incredibly Dangerous
Anti-gunners in Washington, D.C. have tried to ban bump stocks through Congress. After SCOTUS’s decision in Cargill v. Garland, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich introduced legislation to ban bump stocks, which ultimately became a backdoor semi-automatic firearm ban.
A semiautomatic firearm that has been modified in any way that…increases the rate of fire…approximates the action or rate of fire of a machinegun…shall register the semiautomatic firearm in accordance with Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Any number of things might increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm, such as changing a spring, polishing a trigger, adjusting the gas, changing the ammunition, etc. Additionally, a machinegun can be designed to have a fast or a slow rate of fire. Therefore, this legislation is entirely subjective and could be used to ban any semiautomatic firearm. Under this bill, gun owners would be forced to register their semiautomatic firearms with ATF under the archaic NFA.
