1. In your opinion, how might bump stocks fit in the current statutory definition ofmachinegun?

Answer: They do not fit. According to the National Firearms Act of 1934, a "machinegun" is
"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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended,
for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a
machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person." 26 U.S.C. section 5845(b). The same definition also appears in the Gun Control Act. 18
U.S.C. section 921(a)(23). (bolding added).

As ATF ruled in 2011, a simple bump stock is not a "machinegun," because it does not make a
firearm fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.

As ATF testified in the Dec. 6 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, ATF presently believes that
there is some rationale by which it can reclassify bump stocks as machine gun conversion kits.
ATF's Dec. 19, 2017, "Advance notice of proposed rulemaking" gives no hint about the new
rationale might be. http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/2017-27898.pdf
As I noted in response to a question from Chairman Grassley at the Dec. 6 hearing, the Chevron
deference rule has often allowed administrative agencies to get away with imposing extremely
creative and dubious regulations. So it is possible that a new ATF regulation, in defiance of the
statutory language, might be upheld by the courts.

However, because ATF is (or should be) bound by the statutory definition, Congress, not ATF, isthe proper authority to change federal law, so that bump stocks would be more strictly regulated.

Accordingly, any new law should do everything possible to encourage current owners to keeptheir bump stocks, rather than selling them illicitly. One approach would be to amend the
National Firearms Act, by adding bump stocks to the list of items that are registered and taxed
pursuant to the NFA. Current bump stock owners could keep their property by properly
registering it with ATF, as an NFA item. Congress could set the applicable tax at a nominal
amount, such as $5. A high tax would necessarily have some effect in discouraging registration

Nevermind--got it.

He was given a final warning for that nonsense. You made it sound like it's typical behavior here. It's not.