Why do you think I call them Bureaucraps?
ATF Actions Show Selective and Inconsistent Rules and Enforcement
It figures the self-styled “experts” misspelled “identifying.” This piece of self-promoting propaganda deserves a “5 Fast Facts” rebuttal, starting with “Unconstitutional, but there’s not a damn thing your ‘representatives’ intend to do about it.” (ATF/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- With anticipated ATF raids over reports on a purported ATF email concerning forced reset triggers, with similar concerns arising from ATF actions on stabilizing braces, with renewed expectations om the classification of Shockwave-type firearms, and with the hysterical reclassification of “bump stock” type devices as machineguns, one thing is clear: These attacks on the right to keep and bear arms have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with an ATF being pressed by higher-ups to pile on infringements through “rule” changes.
The inconsistency of those rules is another story some of us have been following for years.
In 2005, the Congressional Research Service published a memorandum regarding ATF firearms testing procedures. Among other things, it revealed that the ATF has “over 300 cubic feet of classification letters stored in file cabinets.” The Bureau hasn’t scanned any of these documents into a searchable database to assure consistency of interpretation, to identify and resolve regulatory conflicts. The extent to which this inconsistency has grown and compounded in intervening years is unknown and unknowable without a major organization and review effort, which ain’t gonna happen.
One little-known story outside of older gun owner circles I believe illustrates this dangerous absurdity was revealed in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, VS . ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL 54RCCS “7.62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION SYSTEM” MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. V1: Defendant. That’s when my friend and colleague Len Savage submitted a conversion part to ATF and, after attaching things to it that no one but them would ever think of, like metal, zip ties, duct tape, and chains, they apparently got it to “misbehave.”
Testimony, in that case, revealed there are untold numbers of unregistered machine guns currently owned by Americans that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives not only knows about but actually created the conditions whereby this situation exists. As my late friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh noted at the time in an open letter written to illustrate ATF and Brady Campaign inconsistency and hypocrisy:
“Let me draw your attention to the sworn testimony of one Richard Vasquez, ATF Assistant Chief, Firearms Technology Branch … from a deposition on 10 September 2009, pp. 73-75.”
Regular AmmoLand readers will recall Vasquez and his testimony showing “bump stock” bans to be political:
“During the briefing, the Chief Counsel’s Office provided a written brief and a PowerPoint presentation, which discussed ‘automatically’ and ‘single function of a trigger.’ The brief and PowerPoint presentation, based on the intent of Congress and the statutory text, detailed how even the Akins Accelerator was not a machinegun. However, Acting Director Sullivan decided, against the advice of the Chief Counsel’s Office, to declare the Akins Accelerator a machinegun.”
Now let me draw your attention to what he testified during Savage’s case:
The relevant ATF ruling to consult is 82-8, recovered here courtesy of the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine. And the relevant information to take away from that is this:
“The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machine gun to include 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.”
And:
“Held: The SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and the SAC carbine are designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Consequently, the SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines are machine guns as defined in Section 5845(b) of the Act.”
What follows is largely copied from what I wrote in 2010:
“So that makes them NFA weapons, right? And ones not registered on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) are illegal to own?
Well, not exactly:
“With respect to the machine gun classification of the SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines, under the National Firearms Act, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines manufactured or assembled before June, 21, 1982. Accordingly, SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines, manufactured or assembled on or after June 21, 1982, will be subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act and 27 C.F.R., Part 479.”
You got that, right? They’re the same gun. If you put one produced before the deadline and one produced after it side by side, you would not be able to tell the difference. They would look and function identically. Own one without registration and you’re fine. Own the other without registration and you’re looking at serious time in the federal slammer, as well as becoming a “prohibited person”– for life. Assuming you survive the arrest.
And how many of these unregistered machine guns are out there? A reliable source who tells me he’s spoken to former employees and the former owner of the company in question estimates “Approximately 50,000 were manufactured prior to the cut-off.”
It’s absurd. These are people who will put you away over a malfunctioning semiautomatic rifle that, with prompting and the right ammo, they can manipulate to dangerously slam fire. And these are people who confiscate Airsoft guns on the grounds that “With minimal work, it could be converted to a machine gun.”
One question is automatically raised by this: Why does one group of machinegun owners get privileges and immunities not afforded to all machine gun owners?
And even more basic:
If ATF allows 50,000 or so of these firearms to exist “off the books,” and there’s evidently no problem with that, what’s the whole point of making gun owners jump through hoops, pay to exercise what is supposed to be their unalienable right to keep and bear militia-suitable arms, and have their lives destroyed if they’re found non-compliant?
Such firearms are either extra special dangerous requiring extra special controls or they’re not. And based on results, this challenges the whole (admitted) reason behind the NFA ‘34 registration/tax requirement, the FOPA ‘86 manufacturing date cutoff with resultant artificial inflation of firearm prices, and the entire justification being used to strangle the Firearms Freedom Acts movement in its crib.
It’s just another example of the ongoing federal con job to infringe on our rights, keep gun owners under their boot, and amass self-serving power by falling back on the fraudulent excuse of public safety. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a self-serving liar, a “useful idiot,” or both.