If they are now going to be classified as firearms; how should they be added to an A&D book.

There is no SN or other markings would these need to be added or just on transfer?  How should they be registered, form 5?  Why would this not start anther amnesty?

Is this a trick question?

1) They do not go in your book as they are not firearms today.

2) When the rule takes affect in 90+days, they are contraband.

3) If new ones are made after the rule takes effect, they are post-sample machine guns and entered as such.

What are you talking about?  You can't be serious...

Send a letter to ATF. Post response !

Could this be what OP is doing, they can then legally own a post sample machine gun / bump stock/s?? :

"What you can do is beocme a Class II manufacturer. This is much more fun and sounds more like what you would enjoy. As a Class II manufacturer you can buy, sell, trade and modify suppressors, install suppressors - and own and posess NFA dealer samples. When your license expeires - if you have been in the business more than 10 years or retire - you can keep them. The 'catch' here - any machine gun or suppressor you own as a dealer sample can only be transfered to somebody in your family that is of the first kindred. Mom, dad, sister, brother, son, daughter. You can pass the samples down through the family - but - can never, ever be sold. If your estate has no heirs - the executor can donate them to a local police dept on a NFA Form 10, or, they are surrendered to the NFA Branch. "

Almost everything in this post is wrong or misleading.

1) IF bumpstocks are machineguns, they have been firearms since creation. ATF just isnt prosecuting them for 90 or so more days.

2 and 3 make it all moot. No one is ever going to look for a bumpstock on your bound book. Just destroy it in accordance with ATF guidance and move on.
https://www.atf.gov/file/133136/download

If the ruling has been made why can they not be registered as firearms in this 90 day period?

Why destroy anything other than to just make it easier with dealing with this BS?

I can not just file a form 2 because I did not make it.  But if one has one in this 90 day amnesty, why could it not be registered?

Based on the final rule, there is no amnesty, there is 90 days to dispose of or destroy, where did you get the idea there is an amnesty?

There is no amnesty.

All bump stocks were manufactured after 86 and they are deemed post sample machine guns.

So you can't just transfer it in your books, it needs to be destroyed.

am·nes·ty
/'amn?ste/Submit
noun
noun: amnesty; plural noun: amnesties
1.
an undertaking by the authorities to take no action against specified offenses or offenders during a fixed period.
"a month-long weapons amnesty"

By common definition what else would this 90 day period be?  Why could it not be registered as a post sample during this time?

It takes 90 days for the rule to take effect. There is no "amnesty"......89 days from now is when they become illegal/contraband.

After the rule takes effect, an SOT can manufacture a bumpstock as a post-sample.....but even they can't register existing contraband on an F2......

They are not machine guns TODAY. They are not firearms TODAY. You can buy/sell/use as you wish TODAY. You do not enter them TODAY on your books. NOBODY is at risk of prosecution TODAY. ATF has no legal authority to prosecute anyone TODAY.

The ruling has not been made. A copy of the proposed rule has been leaked.

You're going to make me go dig up the court case where the ATF got told they can determine what is a machinegun, but they can't determine ones manufactured before a certain date aren't machineguns. Essentially, they ARE machineguns, or they ARE NOT machineguns.  The date only matters as to when ATF has decided they will take up prosecution.  If they ARE machineguns, we've all been committing felonies since taking possession, building, buying or selling them.  The ATF is just being nice and not prosecuting

@historicarmsllc  Do you remember which court case the judge opined on this matter?  Seems it may have been the guy who was selling "pre-81" DIAS in shotgun news.

The leaked copy is signed.  It's not expected to be published on the Federal Register until Friday.  That will kick off our 90 days for compliance.

Agreed, but they are not Machine Guns TODAY. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'm just pissed about the situation...

Then here is some humor

The idiots over at FFLsOnly forum think they can F2 the existing supply

If you are referring to ATF 82-2, ATF 82-8, ATF 83-5, they are substantially different in their wording.

Only specific firearms manufactured after a specific date were reclassified as NFA items (MG's), those manufactured before the specified date were not reclassified. They were not "grandfathered" as many like to say.

It's not a matter of ATF "being nice" and not prosecuting....the fact is that if the firearms in those rulings were manufactured prior to the cutoff date specified, they are not NFA items....period....

The bumpstock rule has no specific manufacture date. If the 1982 and 1983 rulings had been written like the bupstock rule, then all open bolt MACS, KG9's, and York Arms Sten (semis) would have been reclassified as MG's.....and would have required registration as such, or destruction/abandonment

He is not. He is referring to several Appeals court Case Law Rulings. The ones I am Aware of are about so-called pre-81 DIAS. Court ruled ATF can determine if it is a MG by function, but not by date of mfg. All or none.

Thus once the ruling is official, they are MGs right then and there.

TXMGO is doing it.

Attached File


Apparently it'll work until the rule change becomes effective, then they'll have to be manufactured from scratch, or repaired from a lawful DEMIL.

I know, the stupid is strong over there.

Post 90-day exemption is going to be an interesting time. Uninformed owners and those "finding" a bumpstock in the attic will come out of the woodwork and the ATF will have to react. Another shooting occurs with a bumpstock and the new ruling has "failed". All machine guns, no....semi automatic weapons, are now "bad" and the next target. Slippery slope and I have yet to find a silver lining in the current ruling.

That wont fly.

If they started as machine guns they will be considered to be improperly acquired and confiscated.

Just like how the JNC sears for glocks.... SOT's are getting visited all over the country the last few weeks due to the ATF determining that they were more than 80% and the SOT's that form 2'ed them acquired them as machine guns... therefore, hand em over.

If you have a one off bump stock or something obscure, then you might have some leverage, but if it's of the many common ones you're screwed.

It didn't start as a MG, not until that Form 2 was approved.
Bump stocks aren't MGs yet.

You can only register what you MFG. I can't register a pre-81 DIAS.

Correct, they are NOT even firearms today, you cannot register them anymore then you can a Night Force scope.

No, you cannot, because it is already a MG.

Could it have been registered prior to 1981 (even if the registrant didn't manufacture it)?
Weren't some DIAS sold as unregulated "safety sears" once upon a time (pre-81)?

If so, that's an excellent example, because an unregulated DIAS in the year 1980 was in the exact same legal situation as an unregulated bump stock is today.
It isn't a MG *yet* (unless you file a registration to make it so).

Like you stated, when the final rule takes effect, they'll all instantly become MGs.

If ATF accepts the registration, then it's a registered MG in the NFRTR.

They've already established a MG DEMIL standard for that exact model of bump stock, so it seems legit.
This isn't a scope we're talking about.

Contraband machine guns, since the MFG did not properly register them. And you cannot register someone else's contraband. And it seems ATF is not offering an amnesty/grace period for BS MFGs to register their product.

Yes, I can put my MFG markings on a Night Force Scope, and it is registered. Until they find out.

The only legal method would be do demil the bumpstock removing 1/4" of material in the locations given by the ATF.  Then plastic weld it back together with a S/N and put it on your books.  Pretty much the same as rebuilding a demilled and imported machinegun parts kit.

How is it not proper?

Bump stocks aren't contraband NFA yet (at the federal level). We seem to agree on this.

Find out what? That it doesn't fit any definition of a Title II MG?
In your experience does ATF take some action on this? Like calling to tell you they think you're an idiot who registered a scope tube?
Or would it just sit on your books like all the other MGs you made?

That's got nothing to do with the bump stock situation. They're about to be re-defined federally as a Title II MG by a CFR final rule.

You didn't address the similar 1980 DIAS situation.
Today we know there were many "improper registrations" involving a DIAS, such as the married receiver M16's, where the host receiver's markings were listed on the F1 or F2, and the DIAS (which someone other than the registrant manufactured) either remained unmarked, or gained the receiver's S/N. Most of those are still circulated today as "transferable" MGs, because ATF has made no effort to go after them.

The more direct comparison would be the 1980 DIAS that was mail-ordered as an unregulated part, and then registered as a MG all by itself, gaining the registrant's markings and a new S/N (the "correct" way). I've never heard an argument that any DIAS registered on a F1 or F2 like that in 1980 isn't considered "fully transferable" today.
I don't believe ATF paid any attention as to who actually manufactured a DIAS in 1980 (or after their subsequent NFA registration) because they weren't declared to be MGs by ATF until the following year. This is exactly like bump stocks today.

There was no amnesty period in 1981 after the DIAS rule change either, but I would wager there are pre-81 DIAS in circulation as fully transferable MGs (registered prior to May 1986) which were not physically manufactured by the registrant, and did not undergo DEMIL prior to the 1981 rule change taking effect. Neither would have been necessary, and no one treats them any different from any other registered DIAS today.

If registered after 1981, then yes they should've been made/manufactured by the registrant (which could obviously include a DEMIL and rebuild).

Famously, we have all seen the shoe string that an 07/02 SOT registered after a letter by ATF declared it to be a MG (Mini-14 conversion device). That SOT didn't manufacture the shoe string. He merely crimped a metal plate onto it to bear the required NFA manufacturing markings.

I believe the TXMGO F2 bump stock to be equally ridiculous, but also equally lawful.

I guess we'll see what ATF does with them.

It is not marked or registered as required by law.

Yes they take action. The Glock sears is an example.

ATF has created a new page to discuss options available for current owners of bump-stock-type firearms to allow them time to get rid of them by the effective date of the final rule. Owners can destroy the device by either melting, shredding, or crushing it. To learn more about destroying the devices, visit www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks/how-to-destroy

The second option for owners is to turn them in. It is preferred that owners contact their nearest ATF office to make an appointment. To find the location of your nearest ATF office visit: www.atf.gov/contact/local-atf-offices.

Because they do not know about them. Bring it to their attention, see what happens.

You can only register what you MFG.

What USC violation would you charge him with, Special Agent RenegadeX?

A different scenario, because Glock conversion sears are already NFA MGs (by Title II definition, a conversion device) therefore an 80-100% complete conversion sear can be considered by ATF to be a MG.

That isn't the case with bump stocks. They're having to change the rules to make it so.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but ATF frequently doesn't give people all the options, just the ones they want them to know about.
They aren't on the side of the 2nd Amendment enthusiast, and it isn't their responsibility to be your advisor.

However, most bump stock owners are not SOTs or members of a government entity, so 922(o) is biting them hard on this one.
In all fairness, if ATF tried to give advice on that page concerning additional options for members of special classes, it would only serve to further confuse the majority of readers.

It gets brought to their attention each time it's transferred, yet they do nothing (except approve the transfer).

That's too broad of a statement.

Imported NFA gets registered.
"Adopting existing manufacturer's markings" is a thing, even if all you do is shorten the barrel.

I can Form 1 (or Form 2) a pistol and add a VFG to create AOW.
I can F1/F2 a Title I USAS-12 or M203 receiver. Then all I have to do is add the barrel and I have a complete Title II registered DD.

Did I "manufacture" it? Not physically, but technically it's still allowed. I just add NFA engraving and register the thing, along with whatever physical changes will render it a Title II NFA firearm.

Nothing has to change with the bump stock because it's CFR that's changing to make it a MG, not anything physical.
That's exactly what happened to all DIAS in 1981.

It hurts my brain to even think about this ruling by the ATF about a plastic accessory.  What else can we reclassify to make the law abiding felons after we have already made legal and taken peoples tax money.