If one is writing a law I expect them to have a working knowledge OR have staffers that do. Is that too much to ask???
Typically, prior to the drafting of a statute, hearings are held and the appropriate experts are questioned.
Sometimes I honestly wonder about that.
That’s not true. In fact, in U.S. v. Miller, the court found against Miller with regards to a short barreled shotgun by saying (erroneously … short barreled shotguns were common issue during WWI) that that gun was not part of ordinary military equipment and that only guns common to military use were protected by the 2nd Amendment. One can easily infer that since machine guns and sub machine guns were at the time and still are, in common use by the military, that the individual right to possess them is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Here is the quote from the ruling:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” A short-barreled shotgun is a weapon, but it is not a militia weapon, and the Second Amendment only protects militia weapons.
Might want to look at the definition of “machine gun” in the 1934 NFA too.
According to their new definition, the belt loop on the right side of my jeans is a machine gun. 
Remember when ATF declared shoelaces a machine gun?
Good thing I wear slip-ons.
1 Like
Dealing with the red herring of belt loops and shoelaces, I will re-post the statute:
A belt loop, shoelace or any other item used by a shooter to create a jury rigged bump stock is obviously NOT covered under the statute. The statute clearly and exclusively refers to parts designed and intended to convert a weapon into a machinegun.
Your shoelaces and belt loops are safe.
And yet they actually tried (in writing) to call a 14-inch shoelace a machine gun.
That brilliance was not part of a formal rule making process.
Rather it is indicative of the current process the ATF uses to evaluate firearm proposals by manufacturers. Had something like that actually gone to court, it would have been smacked down. More an example of bureaucratic nonsense than anything else.
And at least they stepped back 3 years later. 
You don need to be an expert to at least have a basic working knowledge of firearms.
If you lack that knowledge you have no business whatsoever making laws, rules, regulations, or Ruling on them from the bench.
No it doesn’t. Cyclic rate has absolutely nothing to do with how many rounds you can actually fire in a minute.
Hint, you couldn’t carry an AR and 400rds of ammo.
You study on your own and listen to trusted experts until you have that working knowledge.
You don’t need a bump stock to achieve that kind of rate of fire.
Sure you can…thats only 3 bandolier’s ( 420 rounds ).
Really? You can fire over 400 rounds in minute by manually squeezing trigger for each shot? Thats what, 7 rounds a second, sustained for a minute…That aint happening. And that was the low end of rpm.
The word you are struggling for is “Bandolier”. Each holds 150rds.
I’d love to see you hang 400rds on an M4 and shoot it. 
You are just demonstrating you have no working knowledge of the weapon at all.
Cyclic rate has nothing to do with how many rounds you can actually fire in a minute.
If you were the fastest shooter on earth and somehow managed to get that many rounds off your gun would get so hot it would blow up in your hands because the rounds would be cooking off before the bolt ever closed.
Stick to what you know, this an’t it.
1 Like
