A word about Bump Fire and Bump Fire stocksI would like to share with you on the topic of bump fire and bump fire stocks because I am in the middle of writing a response to the ATF comment period for the proposed ban on "bump stocks" (ATF docket number ATF 2017R-22), and I have come to recognize there is a lot of disinformation out there, including in the text of the proposed rule change that would classify "bump fire devices" as machine guns. Not having seen a prior post that went through it in detail, it occurred to me some of you might be interested in what's at the heart of the current debate. My apologies if this rather lengthy post generates offense, but I do not maintain a separate blog to otherwise post this original synthesis. I provide a summary at the end in case the wall of text provided is intimidating. What grammatical errors may occur I confess are due to this being a first draft of a work to be further refined for submission to the ATF.
Key points/opinions to share:
- What is bump fire?
- What is a bump fire stock?
- Can a "bump Fire Stock" be deemed a "Machine Gun" under existing Law?
- Final Remarks
What is bump fire?Bump fire is a shooting technique that is generally applicable to most semi-automatic firearms. In the standard shooting technique only the trigger finger is used to release the hammer, allow the bullet to be fired, and the action cycled by the firearm's gas system. The off-hand simply holds the firearm and keeps it on target. In the bump fire technique, the shooter uses their off hand to pull the firearm forward on to their trigger finger, keeping the trigger finger somewhat rigid in space. After the trigger is actuated the recoil of the weapon pushes the firearm back off the trigger finger, resetting the trigger. Forward pressure from the off-hand then quickly brings it back into contact with the rigid trigger finger leading generally to a high rate of fire. This can be accomplished with nearly any semi-automatic firearm.
By way of example, in some of the earliest instances shooters discovered that they could hook their finger through the trigger and their belt loop in order to keep it steady in front of the trigger, and used a combination of forward pressure from the off-hand and the recoil of the firearm to operate the trigger at high speed. Demonstration of this technique here: (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SnqKOXqbM until youtube censors it). Subsequently shooters discovered that the same firing technique was possible without any support from things like sticks, belt loops, etc. With a carefully held trigger hand the same effects can be reproduced here as shown on an AK-47, (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-FV_VRlXU), and here as shown on a semi-automatic pistol (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL2oKEu_MFo). It should be obvious but I'll point out that this method of fire is not accurate and for a pistol rather dangerous. This shooting technique has long been considered at best novelty and little else but potentially dangerous and hard on the firearm.
What is a bump fire stock?As awareness of the bump fire technique grew, some folks realized that if a standard multi-position stock were allowed to slide freely, and that slide were affixed to the pistol grip, and the pistol grip like wise was allowed to travel freely, bump fire could be performed while still retaining some measure of control via the stock in contact with the shooter's shoulder. An example of the sort of workmanship involved in the early attempts is here (
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qM1WVYMynmM/UTpEJsc0dmI/AAAAAAAAADc/k3W0M6irWDU/s1600/IMG_4787.JPG)
It is important here to be clear that there is no spring installed in the bump stock. Depending on which politician, activist, or media personality is speaking you may hear that the stock uses "energy from the recoil of a weapon to generate a reciprocating action" (this is part of how a bump stock is defined in a recent Massachusetts law). That is not what a bump stock does. No energy from the recoil is harnessed in a bump stock or used for reciprocation. It is only the forward offhand pressure willfully applied by the shooter that generates reciprocation, and this is done independent of the attachment of a bump stock or traditional stock. The sliding stock merely helps guide and control the rifle during the reciprocation that normally occurs during bump fire. An example of a device that DOES use the energy of recoil for reciprocation is the "Atkins Accelerator", which ATF previously has previously deemed a Machine Gun. More can be read about this here: (
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mr-bill-akins-and-the-akins-accelerator/).
Another key point to understand is the question of whether or not a bump fire stock "increases the rate of fire achievable" by a semi-auto rifle (the 2nd criteria under the recent Massachusetts law which defines a bump stock in MA). To answer this one must answer "what is the maximum rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle?" The rate of fire for a car is a function of how much gas is applied to the engine, air resistance, road incline, and the mechanical operation of the power train. Placing a brick on the gas pedal of a car does not "increase the rate of travel achievable" by the car, it merely operates the car toward its limit. Similarly, the rate of fire for a semi-automatic rifle is "as fast as the trigger can be pulled". Nothing about the addition of a sliding stock changes the mechanical speed at which the fire control group and bolt group can complete their cycle of fire. So in point of fact, the MA law that purports to ban "bump stocks", by it's own definition does not apply to the devices marketed as bump stocks since they neither harness recoil energy for reciprocation, nor increase the rate of fire achievable by a firearm. Not that this will matter for people in MA served with a letter saying turn it in or else (
http://blog.goal.org/ma-demands-bump-stock-surrender/). The saying "justice is blind" can be taken in a dark way.
So what is going on inside a bump fire stock? Until youtube censors it, a good animation explaining the operation can be found here (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SrLM8MKXVg). As before, it is simply the already achievable bump fire technique except it now has a manual guide to provide more stability and accuracy. This was brought to arguably its highest practicality in a construction called the "BumpSaw" which leverages a bump stock and a forward bi-pod to offer greater stability (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRXZx3M6bd0 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYt6UYLD83k). This firearm is arguably intimidating and leads many to question "should the average Joe have access to such a thing?" More on this later, but remember, all semi-automatic firearms are capable of this rate of fire without modification. In the Las Vegas shooting, the shooter appears to have used bump stock equipped firearms, but could have achieved the same effects without such devices. For practical demonstration I refer you to a sort of Paul Bunyan vs. the Steam Saw challenge where renowned shooter Jerry Miculeck shoots essentially as fast and more accurately than a bump stock equipped rifle (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTb6hsSkV1w).
Can a "bump Fire Stock" be deemed a "Machine Gun" under existing Law?The designers of bump stocks, not wanting to be imprisoned for manufacturing and selling "machine guns" wrote letters to the ATF with their designs to ask if they were acceptable to construct market, or if they were prohibited. The ATF reviewed the designs, and the letter of the law, and determined that attaching a bump fire stock to a semi-automatic firearm did NOT create a machine gun according to the law as written. Video interview of the ATF reviewer who developed the ruling is here (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kryIJIrD5eQ). Contrary to outlandish claims by certain political figures and organizations, the Obama administration did not let something slip through here. The ATF merely followed correct and logical analysis of the design and the law as written and came up with the appropriate logical conclusion. Given Obama's recurrent statements against "weapons of war" and calls for "assault weapons bans", to suggest that the Obama administration improperly favored the approval of bump stocks is, in the classical definition of the term, purely fabulous.
Why was the bump stock not considered a machine gun? The national firearms act defines a machine gun as follows:
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
In congressional testimony during the passage of the 1936 national firearms act (
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm), it was made clear that this definition is intended to separate semi-automatic firearms from machine guns based on semi-auto firearms firing a single bullet per single function of a trigger, and machine guns firing continuously on a single function of the trigger. In particular, the example of a traditional semi-auto pistol such as a 1911 being distinct from a machine gun is provided. Thus existing law defines machine guns only in terms of more than one shot being fired per single function of the trigger. It has nothing to do with the maximum rate of fire achievable by a gun, nor its furniture so long as it fires only one bullet per pull of the trigger. Some may dislike the wording of this law, but the correct remedy to unfavorable law is to amend or replace it, not skirt around it by administrative innovation.
Mr. FREDERICK. ... The definition which I suggest is this:
[“]A machine gun or submachine gun as used in this act means any firearm by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, which shoots automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.[”]
The distinguishing feature of a machine gun is that by a single pull of the trigger the gun continues to fire as long as there is any ammunition in the belt or in the magazine. Other guns require a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired, and such guns are not properly designated as machine guns. A gun, however, which is capable of firing more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger, is properly regarded, in my opinion, as a machine gun.
Mr. HILL. May I ask you a question there?
Mr. FREDERICK. Yes, sir.
Mr. HILL. Suppose your definition were adopted. Would it be practicable to manufacture a gun that would be classed either as an automatic or semiautomatically operated gun, even with more than one function of the trigger, and still answer the purpose, in a large way, of a machine gun which requires only one function of the trigger?
Mr. FREDERICK. I do not think so. For purposes of example, you may look at the automatic pistol which is the standard weapon of the United States Army. That has an automatic discharge of the empty cartridge and a reloading principle which is operated by the force of the gas from the exploded cartridge. But with a single pull of the trigger only one shot is fired. You must release the trigger and pull it again for the second shot to be fired. You can keep firing that as fast as you can pull your trigger. But that is not properly a machine gun and in point of effectiveness any gun so operated will be very much less effective than one which pours out a stream of bullets with a single pull and as a perfect stream.
The current rule in debate (
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001) as I write this within the ATF, after being pressured by the president and AG to "deem bump stocks to be machine guns" is thus:
...the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms “single function of the trigger,” “automatically,” and “machinegun.” Specifically, the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term “single function of the trigger” to mean “single pull of the trigger.” The Department further proposes to amend these regulations by defining the term “automatically” to mean “as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.” Finally, the Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a “machinegun” includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms 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 (commonly known as bump-stock-type devices).
As we have already covered. While a stock or similar device equipped with a spring such as an Atkins Accelerator materially harness the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed, the devices commonly owned and soled as "bump stocks" do not harness recoil energy at all. If you fire a bump stock equipped rifle without an offhand providing forward pressure, only a single shot results. This rule does not apply, to semi-automatic firearms equipped with the devices sold as bump stocks, yet, it purports to ban the devices that materially do not conform to the definition, and enforcement actions would be expected to commence based on this ruling against devices to which the rule does not apply. This is certainly a very uncomfortable situation to have in a republic that intends to operate under the rule of law. It is inappropriate and unacceptable for the executive to simply define things not covered under prohibitions in congressional law (leaving aside the arguable unconstitutionality of firearms prohibitions), as covered under those prohibitions and then subject to DOJ action. The correct and only acceptable procedure for an administration that adheres to rule of law is to submit the issue back to congress for legislative update to the plain letter of the law, which does not appear to be the expected path forward here. Again we leave aside for a moment the appropriateness of general firearms prohibition given the text and intent of the 2nd amendment.
Final RemarksIf you've stuck with me this far I commend you on your stamina and curiosity. As a summary:
- Bump fire is a technique, not a piece of hardware.
- Bump fire stocks do not generate bump fire, but merely assist a shooter performing the bump fire technique in keeping the platform more stable.
- Current laws and proposed legislation mistakenly or falsely assert that bump fire stocks increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm, or harness the recoil of a firearm to generate a reciprocating action
- The original ATF ruling is correct that bump fire equipped rifles do not generate sustained fire on their own, and do not fall under the definition of a machine gun as described in the national firearms act
- Rather than submit the issue to congress for change in law, the Executive is pressuring the ATF to deem bump fire stocks as "machine guns" and conduct enforcement against bump fire stock owners despite these devices materially not being covered under the current law
It is to point out this last issue that I am writing and including the previous material to the ATF during the comment period on the new ruling. This ruling should not go forward as it is improper, and will lead to litigation and potential injustice and tragedy if it enforcement is attempted, which we could well do without as a nation. The purpose of this post is to help increase general knowledge of this issue and the material facts for persons who are interested in self defense in general, and interested in upholding the rule of law in the United States, which recognize as an interest to many posters here. I would encourage persons wishing to get involved on either side of the debate to search online for discussion about what makes a good comment to the ATF, and consider leaving calm, reasoned, and to-the-point comments with their comment system, which must be adjudicated before the rule goes into effect (so long as it isn't a form letter). (
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001 )
As to points I've left out of this discussion regarding the relevance or appropriateness of such devices in the hands of the American public, there is much to discuss about balancing the needs of public safety with the essential safeguards enshrined by the founders of this nation ensure the capacity of the people in general to resist violence rising from insurrection, usurpation, or invasion. I do not propose to address this balance in this already very long post, indeed, the discussion could exhaust pages. I'll suggest however that history has shown that use of NFA registered machine guns in violent crime is all but unheard of. Hundreds of thousands of such arms are lawfully owned today with no incident. Based on this it seems to me there is a balance between public safety and, as Tench Coxe says the "...swords and every terrible implement of the soldier" which he says are "the birthright of Americans" which does not require general prohibitions against any particular class of arms. The devil is in the details but, as I'm sure many of you have observed, our civic discourse no longer seeks to get to the bottom of issues, find ideal balances, and understand details. I might suggest that the malady at the root of this shortcoming in our civic reasoning is far more a cause of our current public safety concerns than any particular class of arms. With that, I return you to your regular discourse.
Very Respectfully,
-Cruces
Edited to fix title
