Congressional Analysis Cites “Coiled Spring” Precedent For Bump Fire Stocks
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
“On December 13, 2006 … ATF … reclassified bump-fire systems like the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, because it was equipped with a ‘coiled spring’ and initiated automatic fire with a single trigger pull,” the report states. “In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld ATF’s decision.”
Conversely, “Other manufacturers submitted modified ‘bump-fire’ or ‘slide-fire’ stocks that did not include a ‘coiled spring’ or similar mechanisms to the ATF for classification,” the report notes. “From the ATF rulings discussed above, it appears that bump-fire stocks with ‘coiled springs’ and that initiate automatic fire with a single trigger pull are regulated as firearms under the NFA; however, modified stocks without any ‘automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs’ are not similarly regulated.”
David is citing from a FAS report to which we were not privy. Nice. So let’s get this straight. Because there are other precedents that infringe on our God-given rights, agreed to in the second amendment, and because a judge said it was okay, then the ATF can do it again?
Okay, got it. I’ll remember this. Folks, any time you even see an ATF agent you should spit on them, or at least tell them what you think of them. They’re trash. That’s the way I see it. If you disagree, elaborate and show your work.
On January 31, 2018 at 8:54 am, Ned said:
I noticed that David Codrea posted a map and photo of the Shot Show where the ATF booth was supposed to be. It appears they were absent. Maybe someone can verity iv they ever showed.
Perhaps they didn’t want to venture into enemy territory.
On January 31, 2018 at 9:46 am, Fred said:
““Other manufacturers submitted modified ‘bump-fire’ or ‘slide-fire’ stocks that did not include a ‘coiled spring’”
The free market sees regulation as damage and automatically routes around it. Prohibition doesn’t work.
On January 31, 2018 at 11:01 am, Longbow said:
What kind of a man takes an oath of office, then, one minute later, goes to work at a job which violates the oath with which he just bound himself?
A while back, I wrote this:
http://pluckingtheyew.blogspot.com/2013/03/when-malice-is-obvious-call-it-malice.html
and this:
http://pluckingtheyew.blogspot.com/2011/12/open-letter-read-at-your-own-risk.html
This same does apply to FBI and other fed-goons. LaVoy Finicum much lately?
On February 1, 2018 at 3:53 pm, Jack Crabb said:
@Longbow: ANY LEO.
“The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. […] We need only consider the following:
(1) A cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
(2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
(3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
There are no good cops.”
— Robert Higgs