This subject is in litigation, so you have to understand how they can answer this without giving away their case in advance of when they want to. There are a lot of tricks used in answering FOIA requests. For example, one way to give this answer and not give away their case is to answer the question as literally as possible. Most people don't ask questions that are exactly what they want. So, if I send in an FOIA to the ATF asking for any of their records of any bump stocks having been used in a crime, they can look solely at the cases they prosecuted and look just for the exact words "bump stock". They find no such case and answer the question none exist. But if you ask for any records the ATF is in possession of where any device was used in a crime that makes a semi-automatic weapon fire more rapidly than the manufacturer made it, you might get a different answer.jb2012 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:34 pmI have to disagree and here’s why. We can all agree that the ATF/left has wanted to ban bumpstocks since the Las Vegas shooting. We can all agree that IF the ATF were to be biased in one direction (hint:they are) they would use any resource available to find records of crime committed with bumpstocks to further their own agenda. It’s much more logical that the ATF “got got”. They are required under FOIA to disclose any of these records, and I can guarantee you that if there were crimes committed with these items, it would be in this letter. It really only makes sense this way. I cannot imagine the ATF “hiding” or “failing to disclose” information that is a MAJOR key point in their own argument.
Of course, the answer does not say that no bump stocks were used in crimes, just that the ATF has no record of such. They may know of cases where it has happened but have no record written down of it.