A new ATF documented posted today outlines the final ruling, officially banning bump stock devices once posted to the federal register. Signed by Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker, the narrative for the final rule change is 157 pages long and includes an analysis of comments submitted both in support and against a rule change, cost analysis, legal analysis and alternatives to using bump stocks. A link to the full document can be found below.
This final rule clarifies that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns that are subject to the NFA and GCA. The provisions of those statutes addressing machineguns are designed to increase public safety by, among other things, limiting legal access to them. Consistent with the NFA and GCA, therefore, a desired outcome of this final rule is increased public safety.
This final rule requires the destruction of existing bump-stock-type devices. The cost of disposal has several components. For individuals who own bump-stock-type devices, there is a cost for the time and effort to destroy the devices or ensure that they are destroyed by another party. For retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, there is a cost ofthe time and effort to destroy or ensure the destruction ofany devices held in inventory. Inaddition,this final rule incorporates the option of abandoning bump-stock-type devices at an ATF office. Based on the response from commenters, this cost is taken into consideration under the foregone sales section.
Current possessors are encouraged to undertake destruction of the devices. However, current possessors also have the option to abandon bump-stock-type devices at the nearest ATF office. Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will have until the effective date of the rule (90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register) to comply. Additional information on the destruction of bump-stock-type devices will be available on www.atf.gov.
As reported by commenters, the purpose ofthis rule is to amend ATF regulations to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are “machineguns” as defined by the NFA and GCA. Additionally, a desired outcome ofthis rule is increased public safety. While there has been only one known shooting involving bump-stock-type devices, banning such devices could result in reduced casualties as a consequence of reducing incidents of shootings involving a weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device. A ban also could result in less danger to first responders when responding to incidents, because it prevents shooters from using devices that allow them to shoot semiautomatic firearms automatically.
Alternative 3- Opportunity alternatives. Based on public comments, individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-stock-