TexasCHLforum.com

Whew! I can keep my thumb and belt loop!

Until tomorrow when the 9thu circuit overrules....

Google earth will show about a million fresh holes in back yards next week!

In response to the ruling, the BATFE has now classified the index finger as a component that results in machine guns. Owners of semi-automatic firearms will now have the option to either: turn in the weapons to designated local law enforcement; file and obtain the appropriate Class III/NFA permits for each weapon; retain the weapons but remove their index fingers.

Rafe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:22 am In response to the ruling, the BATFE has now classified the index finger as a component that results in machine guns. Owners of semi-automatic firearms will now have the option to either: turn in the weapons to designated local law enforcement; file and obtain the appropriate Class III/NFA permits for each weapon; retain the weapons but remove their index fingers.

Also, rubber bands and belt loops are added to the NFA lists as regulated firearms.

Rafe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:22 am In response to the ruling, the BATFE has now classified the index finger as a component that results in machine guns. Owners of semi-automatic firearms will now have the option to either: turn in the weapons to designated local law enforcement; file and obtain the appropriate Class III/NFA permits for each weapon; retain the weapons but remove their index fingers.

In the bump stock decision the bump stock itself was classified as a machine gun. So it seems like everybody would need to now remove their index fingers, regardless of whether they own a gun.

One minor point of disagreement. The video said that bump stocks were "still illegal". I had thought that yes, machine guns were (and are) illegal, and also that the BATFE had issued an opinion that they believed a "bump stock" met the legal definition of a machine gun. Of course, that same agency has previously said that it did not believe that "bump stocks" meet the legal definition of a machine gun, so at best we have conflicting opinions from that executive agency. Importantly, as far as I know, no court has ruled on whether a bump stock actually meets that legal definition.

Basic civics tells me that the legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws. The only function of the executive is to enforce the laws, but they don't get to make legal interpretations. So until the judicial branch weighs in, this is an open question as to whether a "bump stock" meets the legal definition of a machine gun.

If this is correct, then I think it is factually inaccurate to definitively say that "bump stocks are illegal", until a court somewhere actually decides this as a matter of law.

Additionally, doesn't this ruling only apply to the states covered by the 6th Circuit?

NEW: GOA v. Garland (6th Circuit): In an indirect refutation of an argument made in some anti-gun lawsuits, the ATF says that AR-15s cannot "be 'readily restored' to fire automatically" and that the existence of bump stocks "does not transform all AR-15s into machineguns."