So are you saying he is going to ban currently legal machine gun conversion devices like sears, etc?

Don't worry about it. If anything your transferrable sears just got more valuable.

I have zero concerns this will in any way affect the legal status of currently owned transferable machineguns (sears or otherwise).

I know lots of folks want to believe this is some sort of DJT jedi mind trick memo..... but it pretty clear that wheels on the train are in motion here and that train is a legal change of some sort for recoil assisted "bumpstocks".

The only unresolved questions for me regarding the future NPRM

- timeline
- compensation
- some sort of amnesty/registration scheme.
- will it include "other devices" like cranks, binary triggers, etc.

The real wild card for me here is some sort of amnesty.  From a pure legal perspective, I completely agree that FOPA prevents an amnesty for machineguns.   However, I suspect that if the Feds really want amnesty/registration they have enough creative legal minds to come up with some sort of twisted justification and implement it.    The whole premise of this regulation is a significant legal stretch in the first place, I see nothing that prevents the ATF/DOJ from doubling down on less than sound legal logic if they really want registration.

The rational part of me  would say there is no chance for an amnesty.  However, I would have said the said thing about the removal of the CLEO sig in 41F as well. (The ATF fought  lawsuits over the CLEO sig under Republican leadership and then the Democratic lead ATF completely abandons it when they really didnt have to)  

My money is still on just an outright ban/mod/turn-in model but part of me still holds out hope that current owners are given some chance to keep their property even if its under the guise of the NFA registration.

The key phrase in Ruling 2006-2 banning Akins:

"Held, a device  that is designed to attach to a firearm and, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted, is a machinegun under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23)."

expect something similar.

Probably accurate.....not sure how they will regulate belt loops though

Completely agree...the Akins ruling will share the same legal basis of the bumpstock ruling.

The AA reclassification was only a little bit of a legal stretch as you really are not doing anything to actuate trigger.  Put a AA equiped 10/22 in a vice with a pencil in place of a finger, pull it back and watch it go.  Hard to say that's not a machinegun when it dumps all the rounds with no human intervention.

In the case of bumpstock it a bit road farther as you really do need the human to do "something" i.e. push forward on the forearm.   Legally is a human applying constant pressure on the forearm a "single function of the trigger".  It certainly seems that forward pressure used to be legally qualified as a single function of the trigger be but is probably no longer the case.

The real incongruent part of this is if they bring in cranks under this ruling (GAT, BMF, 10/22 double chassis's).  How do you claim a AR15 with a BMF or a pair of 10/22s in one of those sportsmans guide crank chassis's deals is now a machinegun but the myraid of legally owned historical and modern repro gatling guns are not?  

I know massachusetts  exempted guns originally designed with cranks from their "bumpstock/crank ban" but that was done legislatively and specifically carved out an exemption.   For a federal reclassification under existing law, I just don't see how you could ever say X with a crank is a machinegun but Y with a crank is not.

I was wondering that. If you ban BMF Activator, how does that not include Gatling Guns? Those collectors are going to shit a brick.

If cranks do come into this ruling, the only solace I can think of for those with historical gatling guns is that they were legally owned prior to May 19th 1986.  I guess that is one less legal hurdle for amnesty.

The modern repro folks would be fooked though.

I suspect that the ATF is not going to further complicate the issue and just stick with bumpstocks.  Its obvious the ATF doesnt really want to do this and is getting political pressure from all sides to do something and "bumpstocks" are the real political boogeyman of the day and that is what will be thrown under the bus.

You think trying to track down all the bumpstocks sold over the past 5 years will be a challenge.  They have been selling trigger cranks, chassis cranks, tri-bursts, hellfires, etc. for  40+ years.    You are going to make felons out of folks who have no memory of buying a hellfire or BMF in 1982 and still have it buried in a shoebox.  Hell, there is probably still a hellfire type device and triburst trigger in a parts bin somewhere at my dad's home that I bought as a kid at a gunshow in the early 80s.

That is what I think. They did not want to touch bump stocks, so they are not going to add anything to that.

I still have the BMF Activator I bought in 1980.

Where did I say that? All I said was the he never said or wrote that he was trying to ban bumpstocks.  In fact, it sounded and read like he carefully avoided saying it.

There never was an Assault Rifle Ban; there was a ban on ordinary semiauto rifles that had evil, killing features: bayonet lugs, flash hiders, a grip where a grip should be, a stock that folds, etc.

With those evil features removed, those semiautos continued to be sold during 94-04.

And...  Drive by bayonetings stopped, just like that.

I didn't come away with that, since Lightning Links, RDIAS, etc. are serialized, and registered as a LEGAL Title II firearm.  He wants to ban parts that make a sporting rifle into an ILLEGAL Machinegun.  I wonder if Bump stocks will need to be serialized and registered as well, with a grace period; as were DIAS'.

Honestly, I could care less.  My bump stock was the biggest waste of money I ever spent on my rifle.  It sits in a box now collecting dust.  I'm not going to cry if I have to register it and sell it years later for $15K.

Very curious how this language will be written, since the bump stocks don't make a rifle into a machine gun.  How do you ban a piece of plastic?  Anyone with a 3-D printer can print their own.  Will they ban the sale?  Ban the manufacture?  Ban possession? Time will tell.  In the back of my mind, I almost can tell he may write the language that's not enforceable to please the liberals just to showboat that he did something when congress couldn't.

I was referring to what ske714 said, not Trump.

Trump has been quite clear, and yesterday he made it clear again:

"Bump stocks, we are writing that out. I am writing that out,” he said, addressing a group of state governors at the White House. “I don’t care if Congress does it or not, I’m writing it out myself."


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/26/trump-bump-stocks-424693

Obviously, his position is evolving as he receives more input.  We'll all have to wait and see.