66514 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1Regulations implementing the relevant statutes 

spell the term ‘‘machine gun’’ rather than 

‘‘machinegun.’’ E.g., 27 CFR 478.11, 479.11. For 

convenience, this notice uses ‘‘machinegun’’ except 

when quoting a source to the contrary. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479 

[Docket No. 2018R–22F; AG Order No. 

4367–2018] 

RIN 1140–AA52 

Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives; Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

amending the regulations of the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bumpstock-type devices—meaning ‘‘bump 

fire’’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and 

devices with certain similar 

characteristics—are ‘‘machineguns’’ as 

defined by the National Firearms Act of 

1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 

because such devices allow a shooter of 

a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a 

continuous firing cycle with a single 

pull of the trigger. Specifically, these 

devices convert an otherwise 

semiautomatic firearm into a 

machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that 

harnesses the recoil energy of the 

semiautomatic firearm in a manner that 

allows the trigger to reset and continue 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm 

to which a bump-stock-type device is 

attached is able to produce automatic 

fire with a single pull of the trigger. 

With limited exceptions, the Gun 

Control Act, as amended, makes it 

unlawful for any person to transfer or 

possess a machinegun unless it was 

lawfully possessed prior to the effective 

date of the statute. The bump-stock-type 

devices covered by this final rule were 

not in existence prior to the effective 

date of the statute, and therefore will be 

prohibited when this rule becomes 

effective. Consequently, under the final 

rule, current possessors of these devices 

will be required to destroy the devices 

or abandon them at an ATF office prior 

to the effective date of the rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 26, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Enforcement Programs and Services, 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, 

Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 

648–7070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

B. Las Vegas Shooting 

C. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Prior Interpretations of ‘‘Single Function 

of the Trigger’’ and ‘‘Automatically’’ 

B. Re-Evaluation of Bump-Stock-Type 

Devices 

C. Proposed Definition of ‘‘Single Function 

of the Trigger’’ 

D. Proposed Definition of ‘‘Automatically’’ 

E. Proposed Clarification That the 

Definition of ‘‘Machinegun’’ Includes 

Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

F. Amendment of 27 CFR 479.11 

G. Amendment of 27 CFR 478.11 

H. Amendment of 27 CFR 447.11 

IV. Analysis of Comments and Department 

Responses for Proposed Rule 

A. Comments Generally Supporting the 

Rule 

B. Particular Reasons Raised in Support of 

the Rule 

C. Comments Generally Opposing the Rule 

D. Specific Issues Raised in Opposition to 

the Rule 

E. ATF Suggested Alternatives 

F. Other Alternatives 

G. Proposed Rule’s Statutory and Executive 

Order Review 

H. Affected Population 

I. Costs and Benefits 

J. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

K. Miscellaneous Comments 

L. Comments on the Rulemaking Process 

V. Final Rule 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

B. Executive Order 13132 

C. Executive Order 12988 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

F. Congressional Review Act 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Summary of the Regulatory Action 

The current regulations at §§ 447.11, 

478.11, and 479.11 of title 27, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), contain 

definitions for the term ‘‘machinegun.’’ 1

The definitions used in 27 CFR 478.11 

and 479.11 match the statutory 

definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ in the 

National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), as 

amended, and the Gun Control Act of 

1968 (GCA), as amended. Under the 

NFA, the term ‘‘machinegun’’ means 

‘‘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.’’ 26 U.S.C. 

5845(b). The term ‘‘machinegun’’ also 

includes ‘‘the frame or receiver of any 

such weapon’’ or any part 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.’’ Id. This definition 

uses the key terms ‘‘single function of 

the trigger’’ and ‘‘automatically,’’ but 

these terms are not defined in the 

statutory text. 

The definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ in 27 

CFR 447.11, promulgated pursuant to 

the portion of section 38 of the Arms 

Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 

2778) delegated to the Attorney General 

by section 1(n)(ii) of Executive Order 

13637 (78 FR 16129), is similar. 

Currently, the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ in § 447.11 provides that 

a ‘‘‘machinegun’, ‘machine pistol’, 

‘submachinegun’, or ‘automatic rifle’ is 

a firearm originally designed to fire, or 

capable of being fired fully 

automatically by a single pull of the 

trigger.’’ 

In 2006, ATF concluded that certain 

bump-stock-type devices qualified as 

machineguns under the NFA and GCA. 

Specifically, ATF concluded that a 

device attached to a semiautomatic 

firearm that uses an internal spring to 

harness the force of a firearm’s recoil so 

that the firearm shoots more than one 

shot with a single pull of the trigger is 

a machinegun. Between 2008 and 2017, 

however, ATF also issued classification 

decisions concluding that other bumpstock-type devices were not 

machineguns, primarily because the 

devices did not rely on internal springs 

or similar mechanical parts to channel 

recoil energy. Decisions issued during 

that time did not include extensive legal 

analysis relating to the definition of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ ATF undertook a review 

of its past classifications and 

determined that those conclusions did 

not reflect the best interpretation of 

‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA and GCA. 

ATF decided to promulgate a rule that 

would bring clarity to the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’—specifically with 

respect to the terms ‘‘automatically’’ and 

‘‘single function of the trigger,’’ as those 

terms are used to define ‘‘machinegun.’’ 

As an initial step in the process of 

promulgating a rule, on December 26, 

2017, the Department of Justice 

(Department) published in the Federal 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66515 

2NFA provisions still refer to the ‘‘Secretary of 

the Treasury.’’ 26 U.S.C. ch. 53. However, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107– 

296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of 

ATF from the Department of the Treasury to the 

Department of Justice, under the general authority 

of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 

U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this 

notice refers to the Attorney General. 3 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23). 

Register an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking titled ‘‘Application of the 

Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump 

Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.’’ 

82 FR 60929. Subsequently, on March 

29, 2018, the Department published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled 

‘‘Bump-Stock-Type Devices.’’ 83 FR 

13442. 

The NPRM proposed to amend the 

regulations at 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, 

and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stocktype devices are ‘‘machineguns’’ as 

defined by the NFA and GCA because 

such devices allow a shooter of a 

semiautomatic firearm to initiate a 

continuous firing cycle with a single 

pull of the trigger. Specifically, these 

devices convert an otherwise 

semiautomatic firearm into a 

machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that 

harnesses the recoil energy of the 

semiautomatic firearm in a manner that 

allows the trigger to reset and continue 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm 

to which a bump-stock-type device is 

attached is able to produce automatic 

fire with a single pull of the trigger. 83 

FR at 13447–48. 

The NPRM proposed regulatory 

definitions for the statutory terms 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ and 

‘‘automatically,’’ and amendments of 

the regulatory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ for purposes of clarity. 

Specifically, the NPRM proposed to 

amend the definitions of ‘‘machinegun’’ 

in §§ 478.11 and 479.11, define the term 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean 

‘‘single pull of the trigger,’’ and define 

the term ‘‘automatically’’ to mean ‘‘as 

the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the 

firing of multiple rounds through a 

single pull of the trigger.’’ 83 FR at 

13447–48. The NPRM also proposed to 

clarify that the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ includes a device that 

allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot 

more than one shot with a single pull of 

the trigger by harnessing the recoil 

energy of the semiautomatic firearm to 

which it is affixed so that the trigger 

resets and continues firing without 

additional physical manipulation of the 

trigger by the shooter (commonly known 

as bump-stock-type devices). Id. at 

13447. Finally, the NPRM proposed to 

harmonize the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ in § 447.11 with the 

definitions in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479, 

as those definitions would be amended. 

Id. at 13448. 

The goal of this final rule is to amend 

the relevant regulatory definitions as 

described above. The Department, 

however, has revised the definition of 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean 

‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ and 

analogous motions, taking into account 

that there are other methods of initiating 

an automatic firing sequence that do not 

require a pull. This final rule also 

informs current possessors of bumpstock-type devices of the proper 

methods of disposal, including 

destruction by the owner or 

abandonment to ATF. 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

ATF estimates the total undiscounted 

cost of this rule at $312.1 million over 

10 years. The total 7% discount cost is 

estimated at $245.5 million, and the 

discounted costs would be $32.8 million 

and $35.0 million, annualized at 3% 

and 7% respectively. The estimate 

includes costs to the public for loss of 

property ($102.5 million); costs of 

forgone future production and sales 

($198.9 million); costs of disposal ($9.4 

million); and government costs ($1.3 

million). Unquantified costs include 

potential loss of wages for employees of 

bump-stock-type device manufacturers, 

notification to bump-stock-type device 

owners of the need to destroy the 

devices, and loss of future usage by the 

owners of bump-stock-type devices. 

ATF did not calculate any cost savings 

for this final rule. 

This final rule clarifies that bumpstock-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. 

II. Background 

A. Regulatory Context 

The Attorney General is responsible 

for enforcing the NFA, as amended, and 

the GCA, as amended.2 This 

responsibility includes the authority to 

promulgate regulations necessary to 

enforce the provisions of the NFA and 

GCA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 

7801(a)(2)(A), 7805(a). The Attorney 

General has delegated the responsibility 

for administering and enforcing the 

NFA and GCA to the Director of ATF, 

subject to the direction of the Attorney 

General and the Deputy Attorney 

General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2). 

Accordingly, the Department and ATF 

have promulgated regulations 

implementing both the NFA and the 

GCA. See 27 CFR parts 478, 479. In 

particular, ATF for decades 

promulgated rules governing ‘‘the 

procedural and substantive 

requirements relative to the importation, 

manufacture, making, exportation, 

identification and registration of, and 

the dealing in, machine guns.’’ 27 CFR 

479.1; see, e.g., United States v. Dodson, 

519 F. App’x 344, 348–49 & n.4 (6th Cir. 

2013) (acknowledging ATF’s role in 

interpreting the NFA’s definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’); F.J. Vollmer Co. v. 

Higgins, 23 F.3d 448, 449–51 (D.C. Cir. 

1994) (upholding an ATF determination 

regarding machinegun receivers). Courts 

have recognized ATF’s leading 

regulatory role with respect to firearms, 

including in the specific context of 

classifying devices as machineguns 

under the NFA. See, e.g., York v. Sec’y 

of Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 419–20 (10th 

Cir. 1985). 

The GCA defines ‘‘machinegun’’ by 

referring to the NFA definition,3 which 

includes ‘‘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.’’ 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The term 

‘‘machinegun’’ also includes ‘‘the frame 

or receiver of any such weapon’’ or any 

part, 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. Id. With limited 

exceptions, the GCA prohibits the 

transfer or possession of machineguns 

under 18 U.S.C. 922(o). 

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms 

Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), Public 

Law 99–308, 100 Stat. 449, which 

included a provision that effectively 

froze the number of legally transferrable 

machineguns to those that were 

registered before the effective date of the 

statute. 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Due to the 

fixed universe of ‘‘pre-1986’’ 

machineguns that may be lawfully 

transferred by nongovernmental entities, 

the value of those machineguns has 

steadily increased over time. This price 

premium on automatic weapons has 

spurred inventors and manufacturers to 

develop firearms, triggers, and other 

devices that permit shooters to use 

semiautomatic rifles to replicate 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66516 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

automatic fire without converting these 

rifles into ‘‘machineguns’’ under the 

NFA and GCA. ATF began receiving 

classification requests for such firearms, 

triggers, and other devices that replicate 

automatic fire beginning in 1988. ATF 

has noted a significant increase in such 

requests since 2004, often in connection 

with rifle models that were, until 2004, 

defined as ‘‘semiautomatic assault 

weapons’’ and prohibited under the 

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms 

Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30) 

(sunset effective Sept. 13, 2004). 

ATF received classification requests 

pertaining to bump-stock-type devices. 

Shooters use bump-stock-type devices 

with semiautomatic firearms to 

accelerate the firearms’ cyclic firing rate 

to mimic automatic fire. These devices 

replace a rifle’s standard stock and free 

the weapon to slide back and forth 

rapidly, harnessing the energy from the 

firearm’s recoil either through a 

mechanism like an internal spring or in 

conjunction with the shooter’s 

maintenance of pressure (typically 

constant forward pressure with the nontrigger hand on the barrel-shroud or 

fore-grip of the rifle, and constant 

rearward pressure on the device’s 

extension ledge with the shooter’s 

trigger finger). 

In 2006, ATF concluded that certain 

bump-stock-type devices qualified as 

machineguns under the NFA and GCA. 

Specifically, ATF concluded that 

devices attached to semiautomatic 

firearms that use an internal spring to 

harness the force of the recoil so that the 

firearm shoots more than one shot with 

a single pull of the trigger are 

machineguns. Between 2008 and 2017, 

however, ATF also issued classification 

decisions concluding that other bumpstock-type devices were not 

machineguns, including a device 

submitted by the manufacturer of the 

bump-stock-type devices used in the 

2017 Las Vegas shooting discussed 

below. Those decisions indicated that 

semiautomatic firearms modified with 

these bump-stock-type devices did not 

fire ‘‘automatically,’’ and thus were not 

‘‘machineguns,’’ because the devices did 

not rely on internal springs or similar 

mechanical parts to channel recoil 

energy. (For further discussion of ATF’s 

prior interpretations, see Part III.A.) 

Because ATF has not regulated these 

certain types of bump-stock-type 

devices as machineguns under the NFA 

or GCA, they have not been marked 

with a serial number or other 

identification markings. Individuals, 

therefore, have been able to legally 

purchase these devices without 

undergoing background checks or 

complying with any other Federal 

regulations applicable to firearms. 

B. Las Vegas Shooting 

On October 1, 2017, a shooter 

attacked a large crowd attending an 

outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

By using several AR-type rifles with 

attached bump-stock-type devices, the 

shooter was able to fire several hundred 

rounds of ammunition in a short period 

of time, killing 58 people and wounding 

approximately 500. The bump-stocktype devices recovered from the scene 

included two distinct, but functionally 

equivalent, model variations from the 

same manufacturer. These types of 

devices were readily available in the 

commercial marketplace through online 

sales directly from the manufacturer, 

and through multiple retailers. 

The Las Vegas bump-stock-type 

devices, as well as other bump-stocktype devices available on the market, all 

utilize essentially the same functional 

design. They are designed to be affixed 

to a semiautomatic long gun (most 

commonly an AR-type rifle or an AKtype rifle) in place of a standard, 

stationary rifle stock, for the express 

purpose of allowing ‘‘rapid fire’’ 

operation of the semiautomatic firearm 

to which they are affixed. They are 

configured with a sliding shoulder stock 

molded (or otherwise attached) to a 

pistol-grip/handle (or ‘‘chassis’’) that 

includes an extension ledge (or ‘‘finger 

rest’’) on which the shooter places the 

trigger finger while shooting the firearm. 

The devices also generally include a 

detachable rectangular receiver module 

(or ‘‘bearing interface’’) that is placed in 

the receiver well of the device’s pistolgrip/handle to assist in guiding and 

regulating the recoil of the firearm when 

fired. Bump-stock-type devices, 

including those with the 

aforementioned characteristics, are 

generally designed to channel recoil 

energy to increase the rate of fire of a 

semiautomatic firearm from a single 

trigger pull. Accordingly, when a bumpstock-type device is affixed to a 

semiautomatic firearm, the device 

harnesses and directs the firearm’s 

recoil energy to slide the firearm back 

and forth so that the trigger 

automatically re-engages by ‘‘bumping’’ 

the shooter’s stationary finger without 

additional physical manipulation of the 

trigger by the shooter. 

Following the mass shooting in Las 

Vegas, ATF received correspondence 

from members of the United States 

Congress, as well as nongovernmental 

organizations, requesting that ATF 

examine its past classifications and 

determine whether bump-stock-type 

devices available on the market 

constitute machineguns under the 

statutory definition. Consistent with its 

authority to ‘‘reconsider and rectify’’ 

potential classification errors, Akins v. 

United States, 312 F. App’x 197, 200 

(11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), ATF 

reviewed its earlier determinations for 

bump-stock-type devices issued 

between 2008 and 2017 and concluded 

that those determinations did not 

include extensive legal analysis of the 

statutory terms ‘‘automatically’’ or 

‘‘single function of the trigger.’’ The 

Department decided to move forward 

with the rulemaking process to clarify 

the meaning of these terms, which are 

used in the NFA’s statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ 

C. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On December 26, 2017, the 

Department, as an initial step in the 

process of promulgating a Federal 

regulation interpreting the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ with respect to bumpstock-type devices, published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) in the Federal Register. 

Application of the Definition of 

Machinegun to ‘‘Bump Fire’’ Stocks and 

Other Similar Devices, 82 FR 60929. 

The ANPRM solicited comments 

concerning the market for bump-stocktype devices and manufacturer and 

retailer data. Specifically, the 

Department asked a series of questions 

of consumers, retailers, and 

manufacturers of bump-stock-type 

devices regarding the cost of bumpstock-type devices, average gross 

receipts of sales, and the volume and 

cost of manufacturing, as well as input 

on the potential effect of a rulemaking 

affecting bump-stock-type devices, 

including viable markets or the cost of 

disposing of inventory. Public comment 

on the ANPRM concluded on January 

25, 2018. While ATF received over 

115,000 comments, the vast majority of 

these comments were not responsive to 

the ANPRM. 

On February 20, 2018, the President 

issued a memorandum to the Attorney 

General concerning ‘‘bump fire’’ stocks 

and similar devices. Application of the 

Definition of Machinegun to ‘‘Bump 

Fire’’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices, 

83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted 

that the Department of Justice had 

already ‘‘started the process of 

promulgating a Federal regulation 

interpreting the definition of 

‘machinegun’ under Federal law to 

clarify whether certain bump stock type 

devices should be illegal.’’ Id. The 

President then directed the Department 

of Justice, working within established 

legal protocols, ‘‘to dedicate all 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66517 

available resources to complete the 

review of the comments received [in 

response to the ANPRM], and, as 

expeditiously as possible, to propose for 

notice and comment a rule banning all 

devices that turn legal weapons into 

machineguns.’’ Id. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On March 29, 2018, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

titled ‘‘Bump-Stock-Type Devices,’’ 83 

FR 13442 (ATF Docket No. 2017R–22), 

proposing changes to the regulations in 

27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11. The 

comment period for the proposed rule 

concluded on June 27, 2018. 

A. Prior Interpretations of ‘‘Single 

Function of the Trigger’’ and 

‘‘Automatically’’ 

In the NPRM, the Department 

reviewed ATF’s history of classifying 

bump-stock-type devices through 

agency rulings and relevant litigation. In 

particular, it described how ATF 

published ATF Ruling 2006–2, 

‘‘Classification of Devices Exclusively 

Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire of 

a Semiautomatic Firearm.’’ The ruling 

explained that ATF had received 

requests from ‘‘several members of the 

firearms industry to classify devices that 

are exclusively designed to increase the 

rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.’’ 

ATF Ruling 2006–2, at 1. Prior to 

issuing ATF Ruling 2006–2, ATF had 

examined a device called the ‘‘Akins 

Accelerator.’’ To operate the device, the 

shooter initiated an automatic firing 

sequence by pulling the trigger one 

time, which in turn caused the rifle to 

recoil within the stock, permitting the 

trigger to lose contact with the finger 

and manually reset. Springs in the 

Akins Accelerator then forced the rifle 

forward, forcing the trigger against the 

finger, which caused the weapon to 

discharge the ammunition. The recoil 

and the spring-powered device thus 

caused the firearm to cycle back and 

forth, impacting the trigger finger 

without further input by the shooter 

while the firearm discharged multiple 

shots. The device was advertised as able 

to fire approximately 650 rounds per 

minute. See id. at 2. 

ATF initially reviewed the Akins 

Accelerator in 2002 and determined it 

not to be a machinegun because ATF 

interpreted the statutory term ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ to refer to a 

single movement of the trigger. But ATF 

undertook further review of the device 

based on how it actually functioned 

when sold and later determined that the 

Akins Accelerator should be classified 

as a machinegun. ATF reached that 

conclusion because the best 

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ includes a 

‘‘single pull of the trigger.’’ The Akins 

Accelerator qualified as a machinegun 

because ATF determined through 

testing that when the device was 

installed on a semiautomatic rifle 

(specifically a Ruger Model 10–22), it 

resulted in a weapon that ‘‘[with] a 

single pull of the trigger initiates an 

automatic firing cycle that continues 

until the finger is released, the weapon 

malfunctions, or the ammunition supply 

is exhausted.’’ Akins v. United States, 

No. 8:08–cv–988, slip op. at 5 (M.D. Fla. 

Sept. 23, 2008) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

When issuing ATF Ruling 2006–2, 

ATF set forth a detailed description of 

the components and functionality of the 

Akins Accelerator and devices with 

similar designs. The ruling determined 

that the phrase ‘‘single function of the 

trigger’’ in the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ was best interpreted to 

mean a ‘‘single pull of the trigger.’’ ATF 

Ruling 2006–2, at 2 (citing National 

Firearms Act: Hearings Before the 

Comm. on Ways and Means, House of 

Representatives, Second Session on H.R. 

9066, 73rd Cong., at 40 (1934)). ATF 

further indicated that this interpretation 

would apply when the agency classified 

devices designed to increase the rate of 

fire of semiautomatic firearms. Thus, 

ATF concluded in ATF Ruling 2006–2 

that devices exclusively designed to 

increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic 

firearms were machineguns if, ‘‘when 

activated by a single pull of the trigger, 

[such devices] initiate[ ] an automatic 

firing cycle that continues until either 

the finger is released or the ammunition 

supply is exhausted.’’ Id. at 3. Finally, 

because the ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ 

interpretation constituted a change from 

ATF’s prior interpretations of the phrase 

‘‘single function of the trigger,’’ ATF 

Ruling 2006–2 concluded that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent previous ATF rulings are 

inconsistent with this determination, 

they are hereby overruled.’’ Id. 

Following its reclassification of the 

Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, 

ATF determined and advised owners of 

Akins Accelerator devices that removal 

and disposal of the internal spring—the 

component that caused the rifle to slide 

forward in the stock—would render the 

device a non-machinegun under the 

statutory definition. Thus, a possessor 

could retain the device by removing and 

disposing of the spring, in lieu of 

destroying or surrendering the device. 

In May 2008, the inventor of the 

Akins Accelerator filed a lawsuit 

challenging ATF’s classification of his 

device as a machinegun, claiming the 

agency’s decision was arbitrary and 

capricious under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). Akins v. United 

States, No. 8:08–cv–988, slip op. at 7– 

8 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2008). The United 

States District Court for the Middle 

District of Florida rejected the plaintiff’s 

challenge, holding that ATF was within 

its authority to reconsider and change 

its interpretation of the phrase ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ in the NFA’s 

statutory definition of ‘‘machinegun.’’ 

Id. at 14. The court further held that the 

language of the statute and the 

legislative history supported ATF’s 

interpretation of the statutory phrase 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ as 

synonymous with ‘‘single pull of the 

trigger.’’ Id. at 11–12. The court 

concluded that in ATF Ruling 2006–2, 

ATF had set forth a ‘‘reasoned analysis’’ 

for the application of that new 

interpretation to the Akins Accelerator 

and similar devices, including the need 

to ‘‘protect the public from dangerous 

firearms.’’ Id. at 12. 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the 

district court’s decision, holding that 

‘‘[t]he interpretation by the Bureau that 

the phrase ‘single function of the trigger’ 

means a ‘single pull of the trigger’ is 

consonant with the statute and its 

legislative history.’’ Akins, 312 F. App’x 

at 200. The Eleventh Circuit further 

concluded that ‘‘[b]ased on the 

operation of the Accelerator, the Bureau 

had the authority to ‘reconsider and 

rectify’ what it considered to be a 

classification error.’’ Id. 

In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 

2017, ATF applied the ‘‘single pull of 

the trigger’’ interpretation to other 

bump-stock-type devices. Like the 

Akins Accelerator, these other bumpstock-type devices allowed the shooter 

to fire more than one shot with a single 

pull of the trigger. However, ATF 

ultimately concluded that these devices 

did not qualify as machineguns because, 

in ATF’s view, they did not 

‘‘automatically’’ shoot more than one 

shot with a single pull of the trigger. 

ATF also applied its ‘‘single pull of the 

trigger’’ interpretation to other trigger 

actuators, two-stage triggers, and other 

devices submitted to ATF for 

classification. Depending on the method 

of operation, some such devices were 

classified to be machineguns that were 

required to be registered in the National 

Firearms Registration and Transfer 

Record (NFRTR) and could not be 

transferred or possessed, except in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66518 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

4Examples of recent ATF classification letters 

relying on the ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ 

interpretation to classify submitted devices as 

machineguns include the following: 

• On April 13, 2015, ATF issued a classification 

letter regarding a device characterized as a ‘‘positive 

reset trigger,’’ designed to be used on a 

semiautomatic AR-style rifle. The device consisted 

of a support/stock, secondary trigger, secondary 

trigger link, pivot toggle, shuttle link, and shuttle. 

ATF determined that, after a single pull of the 

trigger, the device utilized recoil energy generated 

from firing a projectile to fire a subsequent 

projectile. ATF noted that ‘‘a ‘single function of the 

trigger’ is a single pull,’’ and that the device utilized 

a ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ because the 

shooter need not release the trigger to fire a 

subsequent projectile, and instead ‘‘can maintain 

constant pressure through a single function of the 

trigger.’’ 

• On October 7, 2016, ATF issued a classification 

letter regarding two devices described as ‘‘LV–15 

Trigger Reset Devices.’’ The devices, which were 

designed to be used on an AR-type rifle, were 

essentially identical in design and function and 

were submitted by the same requester (per the 

requester, the second device included ‘‘small 

improvements that have come as the result of 

further development since the original 

submission’’). The devices were each powered by 

a rechargeable battery and included the following 

components: A self-contained trigger mechanism 

with an electrical connection, a modified twoposition semiautomatic AR–15 type selector lever, 

a rechargeable battery pack, a grip assembly/trigger 

guard with electrical connections, and a piston that 

projected forward through the lower rear portion of 

the trigger guard and pushed the trigger forward as 

the firearm cycled. ATF held that ‘‘to initiate the 

firing . . . a shooter must simply pull the trigger.’’ 

It explained that although the mechanism pushed 

the trigger forward, ‘‘the shooter never releases the 

trigger. Consistent with [the requester’s] 

explanation, ATF demonstrated that the device 

fired multiple projectiles with a ‘‘single function of 

the trigger’’ because a single pull was all that was 

required to initiate and maintain a firing sequence. 

5The NPRM also explained that the term ‘‘pull’’ 

can be analogized to ‘‘push’’ and other terms that 

describe activation of a trigger. For instance, ATF 

used the term ‘‘pull’’ in classifying the Akins 

Accelerator because that was the manner in which 

the firearm’s trigger was activated with the device. 

But the courts have made clear that whether a 

trigger is operated through a ‘‘pull,’’ ‘‘push,’’ or 

some other action such as a flipping a switch, does 

not change the analysis of the functionality of a 

firearm. For example, in United States v. Fleischli, 

305 F.3d 643, 655–56 (7th Cir. 2002), the Seventh 

Circuit rejected the argument that a switch did not 

constitute a trigger for purposes of assessing 

whether a firearm was a machinegun under the 

NFA, because such an interpretation of the statute 

would lead to ‘‘the absurd result of enabling 

persons to avoid the NFA simply by using weapons 

that employ a button or switch mechanism for 

firing.’’ See also United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d 

743, 745 (5th Cir. 2003) (‘‘ ‘To construe ‘‘trigger’’ to 

mean only a small lever moved by a finger would 

be to impute to Congress the intent to restrict the 

term to apply only to one kind of trigger, albeit a 

limited circumstances, under 18 U.S.C. 

922(o).4

In the NPRM, the Department also 

noted that prior ATF rulings concerning 

bump-stock-type devices did not 

provide substantial or consistent legal 

analysis regarding the meaning of the 

term ‘‘automatically,’’ as it is used in the 

NFA and GCA. For example, ATF 

Ruling 2006–2 concluded that devices 

like the Akins Accelerator initiated an 

‘‘automatic’’ firing cycle because, once 

initiated by a single pull of the trigger, 

‘‘the automatic firing cycle continues 

until the finger is released or the 

ammunition supply is exhausted.’’ ATF 

Ruling 2006–2, at 1. In contrast, other 

ATF letter rulings between 2008 and 

2017 concluded that bump-stock-type 

devices that enable a semiautomatic 

firearm to shoot more than one shot 

with a single function of the trigger by 

harnessing a combination of the recoil 

and the maintenance of pressure by the 

shooter do not fire ‘‘automatically.’’ Of 

the rulings issued between 2008 and 

2017, ATF provided different 

explanations for why certain bumpstock-type devices were not 

machineguns, but none of them 

extensively examined the meaning of 

‘‘automatically.’’ For instance, some 

letter rulings concluded that certain 

devices were not machineguns because 

they did not ‘‘initiate[ ] an automatic 

firing cycle that continues until either 

the finger is released or the ammunition 

supply is exhausted,’’ without further 

defining the term ‘‘automatically.’’ E.g., 

Letter for Michael Smith from ATF’s 

Firearm Technology Branch Chief (April 

2, 2012). Other letter rulings concluded 

that certain bump-stock-type devices 

were not machineguns because they 

lacked any ‘‘automatically functioning 

mechanical parts or springs and 

perform[ed] no mechanical function[s] 

when installed,’’ again without further 

defining the term ‘‘automatically’’ in 

this context. E.g., Letter for David 

Compton from ATF’s Firearm 

Technology Branch Chief (June 7, 2010). 

B. Re-Evaluation of Bump-Stock-Type 

Devices 

In the NPRM, the Department 

reviewed the functioning of 

semiautomatic firearms, describing that 

ordinarily, to operate a semiautomatic 

firearm, the shooter must repeatedly 

pull and release the trigger to allow it 

to reset, so that only one shot is fired 

with each pull of the trigger. 83 FR at 

13443. It then explained that bumpstock-type devices, like the ones used in 

Las Vegas, are designed to channel 

recoil energy to increase the rate of fire 

of semiautomatic firearms from a single 

trigger pull. Id. Shooters can maintain a 

continuous firing cycle after a single 

pull of the trigger by directing the recoil 

energy of the discharged rounds into the 

space created by the sliding stock 

(approximately 1.5 inches) in 

constrained linear rearward and forward 

paths. Id. These bump-stock-type 

devices are generally designed to 

operate with the shooter shouldering the 

stock of the device (in essentially the 

same manner a shooter would use an 

unmodified semiautomatic shoulder 

stock), maintaining constant forward 

pressure with the non-trigger hand on 

the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the 

rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger 

on the device’s ledge with constant 

rearward pressure. Id. The device itself 

then harnesses the recoil energy of the 

firearm, providing the primary impetus 

for automatic fire. Id. 

In light of its reassessment of the 

relevant statutory terms ‘‘single function 

of the trigger’’ and ‘‘automatically,’’ the 

NPRM stated ATF’s conclusion that 

bump-stock-type devices are 

‘‘machineguns’’ as defined in the NFA 

because they convert an otherwise 

semiautomatic firearm into a 

machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism 

that, after a single pull of the trigger, 

harnesses the recoil energy of the 

semiautomatic firearm in a manner that 

allows the trigger to reset and continue 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm 

to which a bump-stock-type device is 

attached is able to produce automatic 

fire with a single pull of the trigger. 

C. Proposed Definition of ‘‘Single 

Function of the Trigger’’ 

The Department proposed to interpret 

the phrase ‘‘single function of the 

trigger’’ to mean ‘‘a single pull of the 

trigger,’’ as it considered it the best 

interpretation of the statute and because 

it reflected ATF’s position since 2006. 

The Supreme Court in Staples v. United 

States, 511 U.S. 600, 602 n.1 (1994), 

indicated that a machinegun within the 

NFA ‘‘fires repeatedly with a single pull 

of the trigger.’’ This interpretation is 

also consistent with how the phrase 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ was 

understood at the time of the NFA’s 

enactment in 1934. For instance, in a 

congressional hearing leading up to the 

NFA’s enactment, the National Rifle 

Association’s then-president testified 

that a gun ‘‘which is capable of firing 

more than one shot by a single pull of 

the trigger, a single function of the 

trigger, is properly regarded, in my 

opinion, as a machine gun.’’ National 

Firearms Act: Hearings Before the 

Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 

9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 40 

(1934). Furthermore, and as noted 

above, the Eleventh Circuit in Akins 

concluded that ATF’s interpretation of 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean 

a ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ ‘‘is 

consonant with the statute and its 

legislative history.’’ 312 F. App’x at 200. 

No other court has held otherwise.5


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66519 

very common kind. The language [in 18 U.S.C. 

922(o)] implies no intent to so restrict the 

meaning[.]’ ’’ (quoting United States v. Jokel, 969 

F.2d 132, 135 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis removed))). 

Examples of machineguns that operate through a 

trigger activated by a push include the Browning 

design, M2 .50 caliber, the Vickers, the Maxim, and 

the M134 hand-fired Minigun. 

6Under the AECA, the President has the authority 

to designate which items are controlled as defense 

articles for purposes of importation and 

exportation. 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1). The President 

has, in turn, delegated to the Attorney General the 

authority to promulgate regulations designating the 

defense articles controlled for permanent 

importation, including machineguns. 

D. Proposed Definition of 

‘‘Automatically’’ 

The Department also proposed to 

interpret the term ‘‘automatically’’ to 

mean ‘‘as the result of a self-acting or 

self-regulating mechanism that allows 

the firing of multiple rounds through a 

single pull of the trigger.’’ That 

interpretation reflects the ordinary 

meaning of that term at the time of the 

NFA’s enactment in 1934. The word 

‘‘automatically’’ is the adverbial form of 

‘‘automatic,’’ meaning ‘‘[h]aving a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that 

performs a required act at a 

predetermined point in an operation[.]’’ 

Webster’s New International Dictionary 

187 (2d ed. 1934); see also 1 Oxford 

English Dictionary 574 (1933) (defining 

‘‘Automatic’’ as ‘‘[s]elf-acting under 

conditions fixed for it, going of itself.’’). 

Relying on these definitions, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit interpreted the term 

‘‘automatically’’ as used in the NFA as 

‘‘delineat[ing] how the discharge of 

multiple rounds from a weapon occurs: 

As the result of a self-acting mechanism 

. . . set in motion by a single function 

of the trigger and . . . accomplished 

without manual reloading.’’ United 

States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 658 (7th 

Cir. 2009). So long as the firearm is 

capable of producing multiple rounds 

with a single pull of the trigger until the 

trigger finger is removed, the 

ammunition supply is exhausted, or the 

firearm malfunctions, the firearm shoots 

‘‘automatically’’ irrespective of why the 

firing sequence ultimately ends. Id. 

(‘‘[T]he reason a weapon ceased firing is 

not a matter with which § 5845(b) is 

concerned.’’). Olofson thus requires 

only that the weapon shoot multiple 

rounds with a single function of the 

trigger ‘‘as the result of a self-acting 

mechanism,’’ not that the self-acting 

mechanism produces the firing 

sequence without any additional action 

by the shooter. This definition 

accordingly requires that the self-acting 

or self-regulating mechanism allows the 

firing of multiple rounds through a 

single function of the trigger. 

E. Proposed Clarification That the 

Definition of ‘‘Machinegun’’ Includes 

Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

The Department also proposed, based 

on the interpretations discussed above, 

to clarify that the term ‘‘machinegun’’ 

includes a device that allows a 

semiautomatic firearm to shoot more 

than one shot with a single pull of the 

trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of 

the semiautomatic firearm to which it is 

affixed so that the trigger resets and 

continues firing without additional 

physical manipulation of the trigger by 

the shooter. The Department explained 

that when a shooter who has affixed a 

bump-stock-type device to a 

semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, 

that movement initiates a firing 

sequence that produces more than one 

shot. And that firing sequence is 

‘‘automatic’’ because the device 

harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in 

a continuous back-and-forth cycle that 

allows the shooter to attain continuous 

firing after a single pull of the trigger, so 

long as the trigger finger remains 

stationary on the device’s ledge (as 

designed). Accordingly, these devices 

are included under the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ and, therefore, come 

within the purview of the NFA. 

F. Amendment of 27 CFR 479.11 

The regulatory definition of ‘‘machine 

gun’’ in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the 

statutory definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ in 

the NFA. The definition includes the 

terms ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ 

and ‘‘automatically,’’ but those terms are 

not defined in the statutory text. The 

NPRM proposed to define these terms in 

order to clarify the meaning of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ Specifically, the 

Department proposed to amend the 

definition of ‘‘machine gun’’ in 27 CFR 

479.11 by: 

1. Defining the term ‘‘single function 

of the trigger’’ to mean ‘‘single pull of 

the trigger’’; 

2. defining the term ‘‘automatically’’ 

to mean ‘‘as the result of a self-acting or 

self-regulating mechanism that allows 

the firing of multiple rounds through a 

single pull of the trigger’’; and 

3. adding a sentence to clarify that a 

‘‘machine gun’’ includes a device that 

allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot 

more than one shot with a single pull of 

the trigger by harnessing the recoil 

energy of the semiautomatic firearm to 

which it is affixed so that the trigger 

resets and continues firing without 

additional physical manipulation of the 

trigger by the shooter (commonly known 

as a bump-stock-type device). 

G. Amendment of 27 CFR 478.11 

The GCA and its implementing 

regulations in 27 CFR part 478 reference 

the NFA’s definition of machinegun. 

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to 

make the same amendments in 27 CFR 

478.11 that were proposed for § 479.11. 

H. Amendment of 27 CFR 447.11 

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 

as amended, does not define the term 

‘‘machinegun’’ in its key provision, 22 

U.S.C. 2778.6 However, regulations in 

27 CFR part 447 that implement the 

AECA include a similar definition of 

‘‘machinegun,’’ and explain that 

machineguns, submachineguns, 

machine pistols, and fully automatic 

rifles fall within Category I(b) of the U.S. 

Munitions Import List when those 

defense articles are permanently 

imported. See 27 CFR 447.11, 447.21. 

Currently, the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ in § 447.11 provides that 

‘‘[a] ‘machinegun’, ‘machine pistol’, 

‘submachinegun’, or ‘automatic rifle’ is 

a firearm originally designed to fire, or 

capable of being fired fully 

automatically by a single pull of the 

trigger.’’ The NPRM proposed to 

harmonize the AECA’s regulatory 

definition of machinegun with the 

definitions in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479, 

as those definitions would be amended 

by the proposed rule. 

IV. Analysis of Comments and 

Department Responses for Proposed 

Rule 

In response to the NPRM, ATF 

received over 186,000 comments. 

Submissions came from individuals, 

including foreign nationals, lawyers, 

and government officials, as well as 

various interest groups. Overall, 119,264 

comments expressed support for the 

proposed rule, 66,182 comments 

expressed opposition, and for 657 

comments, the commenter’s position 

could not be determined. The 

commenters’ grounds for support and 

opposition, along with specific concerns 

and suggestions, are discussed below. 

A. Comments Generally Supporting the 

Rule 

Comments Received 

Of the 119,264 comments received in 

support of the rule, 14,618 used one 

form letter in support of the proposed 

rule; 51,454 were petitions or petition 

signatures compiled by an organization 

and individuals; and 53,192 were 

unique comments. Many of the 53,192 

unique comments used repetitious 

declarations of support or a single 

sentence or phrase, declaring, in 

essence, (1) ban bump stocks now or I 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66520 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

support a ban; (2) common sense gun 

reform or gun control now; (3) bump 

stocks should be outlawed; or (4) I fully 

support this proposed rule. Others 

supporting the rule expressed disbelief 

as to how such devices were legal and 

that it seemed to be a ‘‘no brainer,’’ 

especially after Las Vegas, to prevent 

anyone from possessing an item that 

allows the shooter to inflict mass 

carnage. Several commenters stated that 

they were present at or knew people 

who were directly affected by the Las 

Vegas shooting and urged finalization of 

the proposed rule on bump-stock-type 

devices. Some commenters identified as 

active or former military, while other 

individuals noted their support for a 

prohibition on bump-stock-type devices 

while identifying as gun owners and 

gun enthusiasts, strong supporters of the 

Second Amendment, or members of a 

particular pro-gun interest group. For 

instance, one commenter wrote, ‘‘As an 

FFL [Federal firearms license] dealer, 

gun owner and collector, I am writing to 

support the ban on the sale of bump 

stocks.’’ Another explained that he has 

been a member of the National Rifle 

Association (NRA) for over 30 years and 

loves hunting and shooting but believes 

‘‘there is zero justification for bump 

stocks,’’ because the ‘‘only thing bump 

stocks are good for is creating a kill 

zone.’’ 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges the 

commenters’ support for the proposed 

rule. The rule clarifies the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ to include 

bump-stock-type devices, and, therefore, 

subjects them to the restrictions 

imposed by the NFA and GCA. As 18 

U.S.C. 922(o), with limited exceptions, 

prohibits the possession of machineguns 

that were not lawfully possessed before 

the effective date of the statute, current 

possessors of bump-stock-type devices 

will be obligated to cease possessing 

these devices. 

B. Particular Reasons Raised in Support 

of the Rule 

1. Threat to Public Safety 

Comments Received 

Over 36,000 of the supporting 

comments expressly cited public safety, 

saving lives (or specifically children’s 

lives), reducing gun deaths and future 

mass shootings, or protecting law 

enforcement as the reason for 

supporting a rule that would restrict 

possession of bump-stock-type devices. 

A majority of these comments, 

including submissions from 

professional medical associations, 

declared that allowing persons to 

modify semiautomatic rifles with bumpstock-type devices so that they operate 

with a similar rate of fire as fully 

automatic rifles poses a substantial risk 

to public safety and that the continued 

presence of these devices puts all 

communities at risk. Some commenters 

said that research shows that nations 

that have reasonable gun restrictions 

experience fewer mass shootings. 

Additionally, many students and 

numerous individuals identified as 

former or current teachers expressed 

support for the rule, with some citing 

fear that their school could be the next 

site of a mass shooting or stating that 

they do not want to continue seeing 

their students in constant fear of the 

next active shooter. 

Several commenters also noted that 

bump-stock-type devices are a danger to 

police forces, with one commenter, a 

retired law enforcement officer, 

declaring that regulating bump-stocktype devices is an issue of public safety 

and will save the lives of those who are 

in law enforcement. Similarly, other 

commenters, including a former military 

physician, stated that the rapid fire 

enabled by bump-stock-type devices 

significantly increases the casualties in 

an attack and puts police officers who 

respond at greater risk. In light of the 

Las Vegas shooting, many commenters 

argued that, given that bump-stock-type 

devices are easily attainable and 

inexpensive items, prohibiting these 

devices is a needed step to reduce gun 

deaths or prevent future mass shootings. 

Many individuals, including several 

State and local government officials and 

gun safety or public health groups, 

expressed the urgent need for ATF to 

finalize the proposed rule in order to 

protect the public and children, 

especially given the frequency of mass 

shootings in recent months and the 

likelihood that a potential perpetrator 

will seek out these devices. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that a 

bump-stock-type device combined with 

a semiautomatic firearm can empower a 

single individual to take many lives in 

a single incident. The reason for the 

Department’s classification change is 

that ATF, upon review (discussed in 

Part III), believes that bump-stock-type 

devices must be regulated because they 

satisfy the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ in the NFA and GCA. By 

making clear that these devices are 

subject to the restrictions that the NFA 

and GCA place on machineguns, this 

rule reflects the public safety goals of 

those statutes. Indeed, the NPRM stated 

that the Las Vegas tragedy made 

‘‘individuals aware that these devices 

exist—potentially including persons 

with criminal or terrorist intentions— 

and made their potential to threaten 

public safety obvious.’’ 83 FR at 13447. 

For further discussion of benefits, see 

Part VI.A. 

2. Unnecessary for Civilians to Own 

Comments Received 

Of the total supporting comments, at 

least 25,135 of the commenters opined 

that bump-stock-type devices have no 

place in civil society and are 

unnecessary for ordinary persons to 

own. One of the primary reasons 

thousands expressed support for the 

regulation was their view that bumpstock-type devices have no legitimate 

uses for hunting or sporting purposes, 

target shooting, or self-protection. Many 

of these commenters emphasized that 

the devices cause a decrease in shooter 

accuracy, and therefore are not useful 

for hunting and target shooting, and are 

inappropriate for use in self or home 

defense. For example, one commenter 

rhetorically stated, ‘‘[W]hat law abiding 

gun owner who is responsible for every 

bullet they shoot would want to reduce 

their accuracy?’’ Some of these 

commenters further asserted that 

because the devices enable rapid but 

inaccurate fire, they pose a particular 

risk to large-scale public events, such as 

the Las Vegas concert. Many 

commenters, including those identifying 

as former or active military members, 

commented that only the military or law 

enforcement should have access to 

bump-stock-type devices or that there 

was no need for civilians to have access 

to them. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

supporters’ comments on limiting the 

possession of bump-stock-type devices 

to military or law enforcement. Such a 

limitation is consistent with the 

Firearms Owners’ Protection Act 

(FOPA), Public Law 99–308, 100 Stat. 

449, which makes it unlawful for any 

person to transfer or possess a 

machinegun that was not lawfully 

possessed before the effective date of the 

statute. FOPA made an exception for 

governmental entities, allowing for the 

‘‘transfer to or by, or possession by or 

under the authority of, the United States 

or any department or agency thereof or 

a State, or a department, agency, or 

political subdivision thereof.’’ 18 U.S.C. 

922(o)(2)(A). Congress provided this 

exemption because it recognized the 

necessity for the military and law 

enforcement to continue to use and 

possess these types of weapons. This 

final rule is consistent with 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66521 

implementing the requirements of the 

NFA and GCA provisions that regulate 

possession of machineguns. 

3. Consistent With the Intent of the 

National Firearms Act 

Comments Received 

More than 27,000 of the supporting 

comments urged issuance of the final 

rule because bump-stock-type devices 

and other similar conversion devices 

were meant to circumvent the 

restrictions of the NFA and GCA, as 

bump-stock-type devices enable 

shooters to transform their guns into 

automatic weapons. Some commenters 

asserted that it is useless to have a law 

against automatic weapons yet allow 

manufacturers to legally produce and 

sell an item with the sole purpose of 

turning a firearm into an automatic 

weapon. Many of these commenters also 

stated that bump-stock-type devices 

violate the spirit of the law and that this 

loophole should be closed by ATF as 

quickly as possible. Further, at least 

1,675 of the supporting comments stated 

that the proposed rule is consistent with 

the purposes of the NFA and the intent 

of Congress. Specifically, these 

commenters opined that the regulation 

‘‘enforces machinegun laws that date 

back many decades’’ and that ‘‘it will 

have the same dramatic benefit 

originally intended by those 

foundational laws.’’ 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

supporters’ comments that bump-stocktype devices were meant to circumvent 

the restrictions of the NFA and GCA. 

Prior to this rule, ATF issued 

classification letters that determined 

that some bump-stock-type devices were 

not ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the 

NFA. Those decisions, however, did not 

include extensive legal analysis, as 

described in Part III. Upon reexamining 

these classifications, this final rule 

promulgates definitions for the terms 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ and 

‘‘automatically’’ as those terms are used 

in the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ ATF believes these 

definitions represent the best 

interpretation of the statute. Therefore, 

recognizing that a bump-stock-type 

device used with a semiautomatic 

firearm enables a shooter to shoot 

automatically more than one shot by a 

single function of the trigger, the 

purpose of this rule is to clarify that 

such devices are machineguns under the 

NFA. 

4. Constitutional Under the Second 

Amendment 

Comments Received 

More than 2,100 commenters in 

support of the rule argued that a rule 

prohibiting possession of bump-stocktype devices does not conflict with the 

Second Amendment. Many opined that 

the Framers of the Constitution did not 

intend for these types of devices, which 

can inflict mass carnage, to be protected 

by the Second Amendment. 

Commenters expressed the view that 

because persons living in the 18th 

century used muskets capable of firing 

only one shot before requiring a long 

reloading process, our forefathers would 

not have wanted bump-stock-type 

devices to be readily available. Other 

commenters, including those who 

declared themselves to be strong 

supporters of the Second Amendment, 

stated that prohibiting bump-stock-type 

devices was consistent with the Second 

Amendment. 

Several commenters noted language 

from the majority opinion in District of 

Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). 

There, the Supreme Court declared that 

the Second Amendment protects an 

individual right to bear arms for 

traditional lawful purposes such as selfdefense and hunting. However, the 

Court also stated, ‘‘Like most rights, the 

right secured by the Second 

Amendment is not unlimited. From 

Blackstone through the 19th-century 

cases, commentators and courts 

routinely explained that the right was 

not a right to keep and carry any 

weapon whatsoever in any manner 

whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’’ 

Id. at 626. Commenters further 

summarized the Court’s conclusions 

that limitations on the right to keep and 

carry arms are supported by the 

historical tradition of prohibiting the 

carrying of ‘‘dangerous and unusual 

weapons.’’ Id. at 627. Commenters 

argued that the Supreme Court’s Second 

Amendment decisions support the 

proposed rule. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

supporters’ concerns and agrees that 

regulation of bump-stock-type devices is 

permissible under the Second 

Amendment. For discussion of the 

Department’s position on the 

constitutionality of this final rule under 

the Second Amendment, see Part 

IV.D.1.a. 

5. Absence of Congressional Action 

Comments Received 

Over 1,500 comments in support 

urged action on this final rule by 

invoking popular support for 

responsible gun limitations. Many of 

these commenters stated this measure 

would be a sensible first step for gun 

safety and that ATF should act where 

Congress has not acted. One gun safety 

organization noted that while 

congressional measures have stalled, 

ATF is doing what it can to refine rules. 

At least 1,300 commenters indicated 

that ATF should choose saving children 

and the public welfare over the interests 

of the gun industry and pro-gun 

organizations, naming in particular the 

NRA. One commenter wrote, ‘‘It’s time 

we quit cow-towing [sic] to the NRA 

and considered all the rest of us and our 

children especially. Being afraid to go to 

school is unAmerican which is what the 

insistence by the NRA on no gun control 

is—unAmerican.’’ Many supporting 

commenters echoed these sentiments. 

Department Response 

In light of the legal analysis of the 

term ‘‘machinegun’’ set forth above, the 

Department agrees with commenters 

that it is necessary to clarify that the 

term ‘‘machinegun’’ includes bumpstock-type devices. Congress granted the 

Attorney General authority to issue 

rules to administer the NFA and GCA, 

and the Attorney General has delegated 

to ATF the authority to administer and 

enforce these statutes and to implement 

the related regulations accordingly. The 

Department and ATF have initiated this 

rulemaking to clarify the regulatory 

interpretation of the NFA and GCA. 

C. Comments Generally Opposing the 

Rule 

Comments Received 

A total of 66,182 comments were 

received that opposed the rule. 

Approximately 40,806 of those 

comments were form submissions by 

the National Association for Gun Rights 

(NAGR) on behalf of its members, with 

25,874 submitted on paper petitions and 

14,932 submitted by facsimile. The 

remaining 25,376 opposing comments 

were individually submitted. Many of 

the commenters identified as lawyers, 

judges, industry groups, or members of 

law enforcement or the military. There 

were several commenters who stated 

they did not own or had no interest in 

owning a bump-stock-type device but 

still objected to the rule on various 

grounds, including that it is 

unconstitutional and only punishes lawabiding owners of bump-stock-type 

devices. Of the 25,376 comments 

individually submitted, 12,636 used one 

of three form letters; the remaining 

12,740 were unique comments. A 

majority of these commenters raised 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66522 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

specific, detailed objections to the 

agency’s proposal and the premise upon 

which the regulation is based, whereas 

several hundred of the unique 

comments were limited to a few 

sentences opposing the regulation 

without further detail. For example, 

these types of comments simply 

declared, in essence, (1) no ban, or a ban 

is unnecessary; (2) individuals’ Second 

Amendment rights should not be 

infringed; or (3) I oppose any additional 

gun regulations. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges the 

commenters’ objections to the proposed 

rule but disagrees with assertions that 

the rule infringes on the constitutional 

right to keep and bear arms and 

punishes law-abiding gun owners. The 

Department believes that bump-stocktype devices satisfy the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA and GCA 

and that this final rule reflects the 

public safety goals of the NFA and GCA. 

The Department thoroughly considered 

the various issues raised in opposition 

to the rule, which are discussed below. 

D. Specific Issues Raised in Opposition 

to the Rule 

1. Constitutional and Statutory 

Arguments 

a. Violates the Second Amendment 

Comments Received 

A total of 16,051 of the commenters 

opposed the rule on the ground that it 

violates the Second Amendment. Of 

these, 11,753 used a form letter stating 

that the ‘‘regulations dismiss Second 

Amendment protections, by appealing 

to the Heller court decision. But the 

Constitution trumps the Supreme 

Court—so when the Second 

Amendment says the right to keep and 

bear arms shall not be infringed, any 

limitation of the right for law-abiding 

citizens should be treated as 

unconstitutional[.]’’ Many commenters, 

including those identifying as former or 

active law enforcement or military 

members, echoed these sentiments by 

declaring that the proposed rule 

infringes on the rights of law-abiding 

gun owners, and that the phrasing of the 

Second Amendment—‘‘shall not be 

infringed’’—strictly limits or negates the 

ability of Government to impose any 

regulations on firearms. One 

commenter, for instance, argued that the 

Second Amendment’s reference to a 

‘‘well-regulated Militia’’ includes 

unorganized militia, which the 

commenter interpreted to mean any 

person who owns a gun. Because the 

military has automatic weapons, the 

commenter reasoned that the people—as 

the unorganized militia—are likewise 

constitutionally entitled to access such 

weapons. 

Numerous commenters cited the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, 554 

U.S. 570, which declared that the 

Second Amendment protects an 

individual right to bear arms. 

Commenters also referred to the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Caetano v. 

Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) 

(per curiam), stating that this decision 

makes clear that weapons in ‘‘common 

use’’ cannot be banned. One commenter 

pointed out that if bump-stock-type 

devices are now machineguns, then 

there are an additional 519,927 

machineguns that are currently owned 

typically by law-abiding citizens for 

lawful purposes. This amount, the 

commenter argued, surpasses the 

200,000 stun guns found to trigger a 

‘‘common use’’ analysis in Caetano, 

meaning that such items cannot be 

banned unless they are both dangerous 

and unusual. Further, commenters said 

that Caetano stands for the proposition 

that any advancement in weaponry is 

still protected under the Second 

Amendment. They argued that the Court 

declared ‘‘the Second Amendment 

extends, prima facie, to all instruments 

that constitute bearable arms, even those 

that were not in existence at the time of 

the founding’’ and that its protection is 

not limited to only those weapons 

useful in warfare. Id. at 1027 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Department Response 

The Department does not believe that 

the proposed regulation violates the 

Second Amendment. The Supreme 

Court has indicated, and several lower 

courts have squarely held, that the 

Second Amendment does not protect a 

right to possess a machinegun. Because 

bump-stock-type devices are 

machinegun conversion devices that 

qualify as ‘‘machineguns’’ under Federal 

law, see supra Part III.E., prohibiting 

them does not violate the Second 

Amendment. 

‘‘Like most rights, the right secured by 

the Second Amendment is not 

unlimited.’’ Heller, 554 U.S. at 626; 

accord McDonald v. City of Chi., 561 

U.S. 742, 786 (2010). In Heller, for 

example, the Supreme Court recognized 

an ‘‘important limitation on the right to 

keep and carry arms’’: ‘‘the historical 

tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 

‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ’’ 554 

U.S. at 627. More specifically, and 

importantly for purposes of this 

rulemaking, the Court explicitly 

described machineguns as the kind of 

dangerous and unusual weapons not 

protected by the Second Amendment. In 

the course of explaining the Court’s 

holding in United States v. Miller, 307 

U.S. 174 (1939) (upholding Federal 

prohibition of short-barreled shotguns), 

the Court noted that a portion of Miller 

could be ‘‘[r]ead in isolation’’ to ‘‘mean 

that only those weapons useful in 

warfare are protected’’ by the Second 

Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 624. 

But ‘‘[t]hat would be a startling reading 

of the opinion,’’ the Court continued, 

‘‘since it would mean that the National 

Firearms Act’s restrictions on 

machineguns . . . might be 

unconstitutional, machineguns being 

useful in warfare in 1939.’’ Id. Heller 

thus made clear that machineguns, like 

short-barreled shotguns, are ‘‘weapons 

not typically possessed by law-abiding 

citizens for lawful purposes,’’ and thus 

fall outside the scope of the Second 

Amendment as historically understood. 

Id. at 625; see also id. at 627 (accepting 

that M–16 rifles are dangerous and 

unusual weapons that may be banned). 

In the decade since Heller was 

decided, lower courts have consistently 

upheld prohibitions of machineguns. 

Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (upholding Federal statute 

banning possession of machineguns 

because they are ‘‘dangerous and 

unusual and therefore not in common 

use’’); United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 

637, 640 (9th Cir. 2012); Hamblen v. 

United States, 591 F.3d 471, 472, 474 

(6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fincher, 

538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008); see 

also Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (Heller 

II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1270 (D.C. Cir. 2011) 

(Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (‘‘fully 

automatic weapons, also known as 

machine guns, have traditionally been 

banned and may continue to be banned 

after Heller’’); United States v. 

Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 94–95 (3d Cir. 

2010) (‘‘the Supreme Court has made 

clear the Second Amendment does not 

protect’’ machineguns and shortbarreled shotguns). 

This body of precedent, in addition to 

Heller, strongly supports the 

Department’s view that a bump-stocktype device, as a machinegun 

conversion device qualifying as a 

‘‘machinegun’’ under Federal law, is not 

protected by the Second Amendment. 

What makes a machinegun a ‘‘dangerous 

and unusual weapon’’ unprotected by 

the Second Amendment is its capacity 

to fire automatically, see, e.g., Henry, 

688 F.3d at 640, which ‘‘puts the 

machine gun on a different plane’’ than 

other firearms, United States v. Kirk, 

105 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 1997) (en 

banc) (opinion of Higginbotham, J.). 

Bump-stock-type devices qualify as 

machineguns, as discussed above, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66523 

because they enable an otherwise 

semiautomatic firearm to fire 

automatically. Since they bear the same 

key characteristic that makes traditional 

machineguns ‘‘dangerous and unusual,’’ 

bump-stock-type devices are 

unprotected by the Second Amendment 

for the same reason. 

This conclusion is fully consistent 

with Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. 

Ct. 1027. In Caetano, the Supreme 

Judicial Court of Massachusetts had 

upheld a State prohibition of stun guns 

on the grounds that stun guns were not 

in common use when the Second 

Amendment was ratified and are not 

useful in military operations. See id. at 

1027–28. The Supreme Court summarily 

vacated this ruling because neither of 

the State court’s premises was valid: 

Heller made a ‘‘clear statement that the 

Second Amendment ‘extends . . . to 

. . . arms . . . that were not in 

existence at the time of the founding,’ ’’ 

and ‘‘rejected the proposition ‘that only 

those weapons useful in warfare are 

protected.’ ’’ Id. at 1028 (quoting Heller, 

554 U.S. at 582, 624–25). The 

Department’s conclusion in this 

rulemaking that the Second Amendment 

does not protect bump-stock-type 

devices rests on neither of the 

propositions rejected by Caetano. As 

discussed above, the Department 

believes that this rule comports with the 

Second Amendment because bumpstock-type devices qualify as 

machineguns, which are not 

constitutionally protected—not because 

bump-stock-type devices did not exist 

in 1791 or are not useful in warfare. 

Moreover, although the Supreme 

Judicial Court of Massachusetts 

ultimately held that stun guns are 

protected under the Second 

Amendment in Ramirez v. 

Commonwealth, 94 NE3d 809 (2018), 

the court did not suggest that more 

dangerous weapons, like machineguns 

and machinegun conversion devices, are 

also protected. The court acknowledged 

that a stun gun is even ‘‘less lethal than 

a handgun,’’ id. at 817, the weapon that 

the Supreme Court expressly held to be 

protected in Heller, 554 U.S. at 635. 

b. Violates the Fifth Amendment 

i. Violates Due Process Clause— 

Entrapment 

Comments Received 

At least one commenter, a gun-rights 

nonprofit organization, argued that 

ATF’s change of position constitutes 

unconstitutional entrapment. It 

maintained that ATF’s past 

classification letters, which informed 

the public that certain bump-stock-type 

devices were not subject to the NFA or 

GCA, invited the public to rely on its 

consistent decisions and acquire such 

items. With the sudden change of 

position, the organization asserted, ATF 

seeks to entrap citizens who have 

simply purchased a federally approved 

firearm accessory. Citing Sherman v. 

United States, 356 U.S. 367, 376 (1958), 

the organization argued that it is 

‘‘unconstitutional for the Government to 

beguile an individual ‘into committing 

crimes which he otherwise would not 

have attempted.’ ’’ Further, it argued 

that at least some 520,000 law-abiding 

citizens could be criminals who could 

face up to ten years’ imprisonment 

‘‘without even receiving individual 

notice of ATF’s reversal of position.’’ 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that the 

final rule amounts to entrapment. 

Entrapment is a complete defense to a 

criminal charge on the theory that 

‘‘Government agents may not originate a 

criminal design, implant in an innocent 

person’s mind the disposition to commit 

a criminal act, and then induce 

commission of the crime so that the 

Government may prosecute.’’ Jacobson 

v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 

(1992). A valid entrapment defense has 

two related elements: (1) Government 

inducement of the crime, and (2) the 

defendant’s lack of predisposition to 

engage in the criminal conduct. 

Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 

63 (1988). 

As described above, ATF has now 

concluded that it misclassified some 

bump-stock-type devices and therefore 

initiated this rulemaking pursuant to the 

requirements of the APA. An agency is 

entitled to correct its mistakes. See 

Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co. 

v. FERC, 475 F.3d 319, 326 (D.C. Cir. 

2006) (‘‘[I]t is well understood that [a]n 

agency is free to discard precedents or 

practices it no longer believes correct. 

Indeed we expect that an [ ] agency may 

well change its past practices with 

advances in knowledge in its given field 

or as its relevant experience and 

expertise expands. If an agency decides 

to change course, however, we require 

it to supply a reasoned analysis 

indicating that prior policies and 

standards are being deliberately 

changed, not casually ignored.’’). This 

rulemaking procedure is specifically 

designed to notify the public about 

changes in ATF’s interpretation of the 

NFA and GCA and to help the public 

avoid the unlawful possession of a 

machinegun. It is important to note that 

at no time did ATF induce any member 

of the public to commit a crime. The 

ANPRM, NPRM, and this final rule have 

followed the statutory process for 

ensuring that the public is aware of the 

correct classification of bump-stock-type 

devices under the law, and that 

continued possession of such devices is 

prohibited. Anyone currently in 

possession of a bump-stock-type device 

is not acting unlawfully unless they fail 

to relinquish or destroy their device 

after the effective date of this regulation. 

ii. Violates Takings Clause and Due 

Process Clause 

Comments Received 

Over 1,200 commenters objected that 

the rule will violate the Takings Clause 

of the Fifth Amendment, which 

provides ‘‘private property [shall not] be 

taken for public use, without just 

compensation.’’ Some commenters said 

that the Takings Clause requires the 

Government to compensate 

manufacturers for their present and 

future loss of revenues. Many other 

commenters further indicated that the 

Government would owe compensation 

to owners of bump-stock-type devices 

because the Government would 

effectively be taking personal property 

for public safety, which is a form of 

public use. They cited Horne v. 

Department of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 

2419, 2428 (2015), for the proposition 

that mandating relinquishment of 

property constitutes a physical taking 

and requires compensation. One 

commenter contrasted this rule with the 

regulation at issue in Andrus v. Allard, 

444 U.S. 51 (1979), which prohibited 

the commercial sale of eagle body parts 

gathered before 1940. The commenter 

observed that the Supreme Court held 

the eagle-part regulation was not a 

regulatory taking because it did not 

compel the surrender of the body parts 

and imposed no physical invasion or 

restraint upon them. Id. at 65–66. By 

contrast, the commenter noted, owners 

of bump-stock-type devices under the 

regulation would be compelled to 

surrender their devices or face criminal 

penalties. 

Several commenters also stated that 

‘‘for this regulation to be Constitutional 

each and every owner of a bump stock, 

or other devices captured in this 

regulation not yet named, must be given 

their day in court to present evidence 

and an argument as to why their 

property shouldn’t be taken without 

compensation at a minimum.’’ 

Many commenters separately opined 

that the Department did not include the 

cost of compensation in its cost-benefit 

analysis and several proposed estimated 

costs of such compensation. Those 

comments are addressed in Part IV.I.1. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

7 In the takings context, the use of the term 

‘‘police power’’ in connection with Federal 

regulation does not posit the existence of a ‘‘plenary 

police power’’ at the Federal level. Cf. United States 

v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995). Rather, it refers 

to ‘‘the power of the federal government to engage,’’ 

pursuant to one or more of its enumerated powers, 

‘‘in activities not unlike those engaged in by the 

states under their inherent sovereign powers’’ to 

protect the public welfare. Fla. Rock Indus., Inc. v. 

United States, 18 F.3d 1560, 1568 n.17 (Fed. Cir. 

1994). 

Department Response 

The Department does not agree that 

classifying bump-stock-type devices as 

machineguns results in the unlawful 

taking of property ‘‘for public use, 

without just compensation.’’ U.S. Const. 

amend. V. It is well established that 

‘‘the nature of the [government’s] action 

is critical in takings analysis.’’ Keystone 

Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 

480 U.S. 470, 488 (1987); accord Penn 

Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 

438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978) (‘‘character of 

the government action’’ has ‘‘particular 

significance’’). The Department’s action 

here, classifying bump-stock-type 

devices as machineguns subject to the 

NFA and GCA, does not have the nature 

of a taking. 

A restriction on ‘‘contraband or 

noxious goods’’ and dangerous articles 

by the government to protect public 

safety and welfare ‘‘has not been 

regarded as a taking for public use for 

which compensation must be paid.’’ 

Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 

F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see 

also United States v. $7,990.00 in U.S. 

Currency, 170 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 

1999) (‘‘forfeiture of contraband is an 

exercise of the government’s police 

power’’ and does not qualify as a 

taking).7 The Takings Clause was ‘‘not 

intended as a limitation of the exercise 

of those police powers which are 

necessary to the tranquility of every 

well-ordered community, nor of that 

general power over private property 

which is necessary for the orderly 

existence of all governments. It has 

always been held that the legislature 

may make police regulations, although 

they may interfere with the full 

enjoyment of private property, and 

though no compensation is given.’’ Chi., 

Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 

200 U.S. 561, 594 (1906) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., 

Holliday Amusement Co. of Charleston 

v. South Carolina, 493 F.3d 404, 409–11 

(4th Cir. 2007) (upholding State 

prohibition of video gaming machines 

without compensation). 

In Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 

668–69 (1887), for example, the 

Supreme Court rejected a distiller’s 

argument that a State constitutional 

amendment prohibiting the manufacture 

and sale of intoxicating liquors was an 

unconstitutional taking. The Court 

explained that the government’s power 

to prohibit the ‘‘use by individuals of 

their property, as will be prejudicial to 

the health, the morals, or the safety of 

the public, is not, and, consistently with 

the existence and safety of organized 

society, cannot be, burdened with the 

condition that the state must 

compensate such individual owners for 

pecuniary losses they may sustain, by 

reason of their not being permitted, by 

a noxious use of their property, to inflict 

injury upon the community.’’ Id. at 669. 

Similarly, the Supreme Court held in 

Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 280 

(1928), that Virginia was not required to 

compensate owners of red cedar trees 

for the value of trees that the State had 

ordered destroyed to prevent the spread 

of a disease that threatened local apple 

orchards. ‘‘[W]here the public interest is 

involved,’’ the Court observed, 

‘‘preferment of that interest over the 

property interest of the individual, to 

the extent even of its destruction, is one 

of the distinguishing characteristics of 

every exercise of the police power 

which affects property.’’ Id. at 279–80. 

Lower courts have likewise deemed the 

Takings Clause inapplicable to 

governmental regulation of dangerous 

personal property for public-safety 

reasons. See, e.g., Garcia v. Vill. of 

Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (N.M. Ct. App. 

1988) (village ordinance banning 

possession of pit bulls was ‘‘a proper 

exercise of the Village’s police power’’ 

and not a taking). 

Consistent with these cases, courts 

have rejected arguments that restrictions 

on the possession of dangerous firearms, 

like machineguns, are takings requiring 

just compensation. In Akins v. United 

States, 82 Fed. Cl. 619 (2008), for 

example, the Court of Federal Claims 

held that ATF’s ultimate classification 

of the Akins Accelerator as a 

machinegun, see supra Part III, was not 

a taking. The court reasoned that ATF 

had acted ‘‘pursuant to the police power 

conferred on it by Congress’’ rather than 

by exercising eminent domain, and that 

the plaintiff lacked a sufficient property 

interest because he had ‘‘voluntarily 

entered an area subject to pervasive 

federal regulation—the manufacture and 

sale of firearms.’’ Id. at 623–24; see also 

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 452 

(1996) (‘‘The government may not be 

required to compensate an owner for 

property which it has already lawfully 

acquired under the exercise of 

governmental authority other than the 

power of eminent domain.’’). Similar 

reasoning led the District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals to hold that a DC law 

prohibiting machineguns and requiring 

their disposal or removal was not a 

taking. Fesjian v. Jefferson, 399 A.2d 

861, 865–66 (1979). These precedents 

support the Department’s conclusion 

that the prohibition of bump-stock-type 

devices as machineguns does not have 

the character of a compensable taking 

within the meaning of the Fifth 

Amendment. 

The Department acknowledges that a 

panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit recently upheld a 

preliminary injunction against the 

Attorney General of California that 

relied in part on the Takings Clause in 

prohibiting the State from implementing 

restrictions on firearm magazines that 

hold more than 10 rounds. Duncan v. 

Becerra, No. 17–56081, 2018 WL 

3433828 (9th Cir. July 17, 2018). The 

Ninth Circuit’s order essentially 

adopted the district court’s analysis of 

the Takings Clause question. See id. at 

*3. The district court’s reasoning on the 

takings question was closely 

intertwined with the Second 

Amendment inquiry, and rested on the 

conclusion that it was ‘‘dubious’’ for 

California to deem large-capacity 

magazines a public nuisance given the 

Supreme Court’s observation that 

‘‘[g]uns in general are not deleterious 

devices or products or obnoxious waste 

materials.’’ Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F. 

Supp. 3d 1106, 1137 (S.D. Cal. 2017) 

(internal quotation marks omitted) 

(quoting Staples v. United States, 511 

U.S. 600, 610 (1994)). But regulation of 

bump-stock-type devices is 

fundamentally distinguishable from 

California’s prohibition on possessing 

such magazines. As discussed, and as 

Heller indicates, dangerous and unusual 

weapons are not entitled to Second 

Amendment protection, and may indeed 

qualify as deleterious devices or 

contraband. Other district courts have 

followed the reasoning of cases like 

Akins and Fesjian and rejected takings 

challenges to California firearm 

restrictions. See Rupp v. Becerra, 2018 

WL 2138452, at *8–9 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 

2018) (restrictions on ‘‘assault 

weapons’’); Wiese v. Becerra, 263 F. 

Supp. 3d 986, 995 (E.D. Cal. 2017) 

(prohibition of large-capacity gun 

magazines). 

Finally, the Department does not 

agree that each owner of a bump-stocktype device has a due-process right to a 

hearing in connection with the 

promulgation of this rule. The rule 

clarifies the scope of the NFA and GCA, 

general legislative enactments, with 

respect to bump-stock-type devices. 

‘‘Official action that is legislative in 

nature is not subject to the notice and 

hearing requirements of the due process 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66525 

clause.’’ Interport Pilots Agency, Inc. v. 

Sammis, 14 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 

1994); see also, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. 

v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 

441, 445 (1915) (‘‘General statutes 

within the state power are passed that 

affect the person or property of 

individuals, sometimes to the point of 

ruin, without giving them a chance to be 

heard.’’). Furthermore, the Department’s 

conclusion that bump-stock-type 

devices are machineguns under the NFA 

and GCA means that owners lack a 

cognizable property interest in these 

devices for due-process purposes. As 

the Fifth Circuit held in Cooper v. City 

of Greenwood, firearms covered by the 

NFA are ‘‘contraband per se,’’ and 

‘‘[c]ourts will not entertain a claim 

contesting the confiscation of 

contraband per se because one cannot 

have a property right in that which is 

not subject to legal possession.’’ 904 

F.2d 302, 305 (1990). 

c. Violates Ex Post Facto Clause and Bill 

of Attainder Clause 

Comments Received 

Numerous commenters asserted that 

the proposed rule would violate article 

I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution, 

which states, ‘‘No Bill of Attainder or ex 

post facto Law shall be passed.’’ One 

gun-rights nonprofit organization, 

quoting United States v. O’Neal, 180 

F.3d 115, 122 (4th Cir. 1999), stated that 

even though this is a regulatory action, 

the ‘‘sanction or disability it imposes is 

‘so punitive in fact’ that the law ‘may 

not legitimately be viewed as civil in 

nature.’ ’’ 

Another commenter, the Maryland 

Shall Issue organization, argued that 

ATF’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. 922(o) 

creates an impermissible ex post facto 

law because current owners and 

manufacturers of bump-stock-type 

devices ‘‘became felons as of the date 

and time they took possession of a 

bump stock, even though such 

possession and manufacture was then 

expressly permitted by prior ATF 

interpretations.’’ The commenter cited 

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 

(1798), and Peugh v. United States, 569 

U.S. 530 (2013), to support its 

arguments. It argued that the ex post 

facto issue can be avoided by holding 

that the exemption in 18 U.S.C. 

922(o)(2)(A) applies where bump-stocktype devices are possessed under ‘‘the 

authority’’ of prior ATF rulings. 

Furthermore, the commenter, citing 

Bowen v. Georgetown University 

Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), 

stated that the Supreme Court has held 

that an agency cannot engage in 

retroactive rulemaking without specific 

congressional authorization. Relying on 

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 

30, 36 (2006), the commenter stated 

there is no question that the proposed 

rule has a retroactive effect because the 

rule would ‘‘affect’’ existing rights and 

impose new liabilities on the past and 

continued possession of bump-stocktype devices. 

At least one commenter argued the 

rule is an unconstitutional bill of 

attainder because the rule restricts 

particular brands of stocks, per the 

Department’s definition, while not at 

the same time restricting all brands of 

stocks. Similarly, another commenter 

stated the regulation appears punitive in 

nature, and abusively narrow in 

targeting Slide Fire, a seller of bumpstock-type devices that has already 

announced the close of its business. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that the 

proposed rule violates the Ex Post Facto 

or Bill of Attainder Clauses. The rule 

would criminalize only future conduct, 

not past possession of bump-stock-type 

devices that ceases by the effective date 

of this rule. In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 

Dall.) 386 (1798), the Supreme Court set 

out four types of laws that violate the Ex 

Post Facto Clause: 

1st. Every law that makes an action, done 

before the passing of the law, and which was 

innocent when done, criminal; and punishes 

such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates 

a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when 

committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the 

punishment, and inflicts a greater 

punishment, than the law annexed to the 

crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that 

alters the legal rules of evidence, and 

receives less, or different, testimony, than the 

law required at the time of the commission 

of the offence, in order to convict the 

offender. 

Id. at 390. Citing Calder, the Supreme 

Court has explained that ‘‘[t]o fall 

within the ex post facto prohibition, a 

law must be retrospective—that is, it 

must apply to events occurring before its 

enactment—and it must disadvantage 

the offender affected by it by altering the 

definition of criminal conduct or 

increasing the punishment for the 

crime.’’ Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 

441 (1997) (emphasis added; citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The Federal courts have thus been 

careful to distinguish statutes and 

regulations that violate the Ex Post 

Facto Clause from those that criminalize 

only future conduct and are therefore 

not ‘‘retrospective,’’ including in the 

firearms possession context. For 

example, following passage of the 

Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. 

922(g)(9)), which made it unlawful for 

persons convicted of a misdemeanor 

crime of domestic violence to possess a 

firearm, several defendants argued that 

the law violated the Ex Post Facto 

Clause. One defendant argued that he 

had a prior conviction for a 

misdemeanor crime of domestic 

violence, but lawfully possessed a 

firearm before 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) 

became law. United States v. Mitchell, 

209 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2000). The 

defendant argued that, as applied to 

him, the statute violated the Ex Post 

Facto Clause because the new law 

penalized him for his previous domestic 

violence conviction. However, the 

Fourth Circuit disagreed, noting that 

‘‘[i]t is immaterial that Mitchell’s 

firearm purchase and domestic violence 

conviction occurred prior to 

§ 922(g)(9)’s enactment because the 

conduct prohibited by § 922(g)(9) is the 

possession of a firearm.’’ Id. at 322; see 

also United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 

430, 436–37 (8th Cir. 2004); United 

States v. Meade, 986 F. Supp. 66, 69 (D. 

Mass. 1997), aff’d, 175 F.2d 215 (1st Cir. 

1999); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 

282, 290–91 (2d Cir. 1994); United 

States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 495–96 

(1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.); United States 

v. D’Angelo, 819 F.2d 1062, 1065–66 

(11th Cir. 1987). 

This rule brings clarity to the meaning 

of ‘‘machinegun,’’ and makes clear that 

individuals are subject to criminal 

liability only for possessing bump-stocktype devices after the effective date of 

regulation, not for possession before that 

date. No action taken before the 

effective date of the regulation is 

affected under the rule. Although 

regulating past possession of a firearm 

may implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause, 

regulating the continued or future 

possession of a firearm that is already 

possessed does not. See Benedetto v. 

Sessions, No. CCB–17–0058; 2017 WL 

4310089, at *5 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2017) 

(‘‘Whether a gun was purchased before 

the challenged law was enacted . . . is 

immaterial to whether the challenged 

law regulates conduct that occurred 

before or after its enactment.’’); see also 

Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188, 193 

(1925) (rejecting Ex Post Facto Clause 

challenge to statute that prohibited the 

post-enactment possession of 

intoxicating liquor, even when the 

liquor was lawfully acquired before the 

statute’s enactment). For this reason, the 

Department disagrees with commenters’ 

assertions that the rule violates the Ex 

Post Facto Clause. 

Relatedly, the Department also 

disagrees with the view that 18 U.S.C. 

922(o)(2)(A) provides the authority to 

permit continued possession of bumpstock-type devices ‘‘under the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66526 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

authority’’ of prior ATF rulings. Section 

922(o)(2)(A) is inapplicable because, 

among other reasons, ATF’s letter 

rulings regarding bump-stock-type 

devices did not purport to authorize the 

possession of devices qualifying as 

machineguns under section 922(o)(1); 

instead, ATF advised individuals that 

certain devices did not qualify as 

machineguns in the first place, a 

position that ATF has now 

reconsidered. Furthermore, section 

922(o)(2)(A) does not empower ATF to 

freely grant exemptions from section 

922’s general prohibition of 

machineguns. 

The Department also disagrees that 

the proposed rule constitutes a bill of 

attainder. The Supreme Court has 

highlighted the fact that the Bill of 

Attainder Clause applies only to 

Congress, noting that ‘‘[t]he 

distinguishing feature of a bill of 

attainder is the substitution of a 

legislative for a judicial determination of 

guilt.’’ De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 

144, 160 (1960) (emphasis added). The 

Court has also described a bill of 

attainder as ‘‘a law that legislatively 

determines guilt and inflicts 

punishment upon an identifiable 

individual without provision of the 

protections of a judicial trial.’’ Nixon v. 

Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468 

(1977) (emphasis added). Accordingly, 

the Bill of Attainder Clause does not 

apply ‘‘to regulations promulgated by an 

executive agency.’’ Paradissiotis v. 

Rubin, 171 F.3d 983, 988–89 (5th Cir. 

1999) (citing Walmer v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Defense, 52 F.3d 851, 855 (10th Cir. 

1995) (‘‘The bulk of authority suggests 

that the constitutional prohibition 

against bills of attainder applies to 

legislative acts, not to regulatory actions 

of administrative agencies.’’)); see also 

Korte v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 797 

F.2d 967, 972 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Marshall 

v. Sawyer, 365 F.2d 105, 111 (9th Cir. 

1966). Even if the proposed rule were 

subject to the Bill of Attainder Clause, 

it would pass constitutional muster. The 

fact that Slide Fire announced the close 

of its business does not make this rule 

a bill of attainder; that company is not 

being singled out, as the proposed rule 

applies to all similar devices. Further, 

the regulation of all machineguns of this 

type is not a ‘‘punishment’’ as is 

required for an enactment to be 

unlawful bill of attainder. See Nixon, 

433 U.S. at 473. 

d. Violates Fourth Amendment 

Comments Received 

Many commenters also raised 

objections on grounds that the proposed 

rule violates the Fourth Amendment’s 

guarantee against unreasonable searches 

and seizures. Commenters believed that 

because bump-stock-type devices 

essentially would become contraband 

under the rule, ‘‘mandating [their] 

surrender to authorities would violate 

the 4th Amendment protection from 

seizure without due process.’’ 

Department Response 

Although commenters cite the Fourth 

Amendment, it is unclear how a 

‘‘search’’ or ‘‘seizure’’ would result from 

this rule. The Department is unaware of 

any precedent supporting the view that 

a general regulatory prohibition of 

possession of certain contraband can 

violate the Fourth Amendment. A 

seizure in ‘‘[v]iolation of the Fourth 

Amendment requires an intentional 

acquisition of physical control,’’ Brower 

v. Cty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989), 

and the final rule makes clear that 

current possessors of bump-stock-type 

devices are not required to surrender the 

devices to the authorities. Instead, 

current possessors may lawfully dispose 

of their devices in other ways, as 

discussed below in Part IV.D.7. 

e. Violates Ninth and Tenth 

Amendments 

Comments Received 

Various commenters opposed to the 

rule stated that it would violate the 

Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the 

Constitution. The Ninth Amendment 

provides: ‘‘The enumeration in the 

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not 

be construed to deny or disparage others 

retained by the people.’’ The Tenth 

Amendment provides: ‘‘The powers not 

delegated to the United States by the 

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 

States, are reserved to the States 

respectively, or to the people.’’ One 

commenter said, ‘‘The BATF is another 

agency whose existence violates the 

10th Amendment.’’ Another commenter 

argued, ‘‘as an accessory, the federal 

government cannot ban [bump-stocktype devices], because only the states 

can ban them.’’ A handful of other 

commenters stated that the rule violates 

States’ rights under the Tenth 

Amendment because it violates the 

‘‘right to keep and bear arms’’ 

provisions of 44 State constitutions. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that the 

proposed rule violates the commenters’ 

rights under the Ninth Amendment. The 

Ninth Amendment ‘‘does not confer 

substantive rights in addition to those 

conferred by other portions of our 

governing law. The Ninth Amendment 

‘was added to the Bill of Rights to 

ensure that the maxim expressio unius 

est exclusio alterius would not be used 

at a later time to deny fundamental 

rights merely because they were not 

specifically enumerated in the 

Constitution.’ ’’ Gibson v. Matthews, 926 

F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing 

Charles v. Brown, 495 F. Supp. 862, 

863–64 (N.D. Ala. 1980)). Federal 

‘‘circuit courts across the country have 

consistently held that the Ninth 

Amendment does not impinge upon 

Congress’s authority to restrict firearm 

ownership.’’ United States v. Finnell, 

256 F. Supp. 2d 493, 498 (E.D. Va. 

2003). 

The Department also disagrees that 

the rule violates the Tenth Amendment. 

Commenters seemingly argued that the 

powers exercised by the Department in 

issuing the rule were ‘‘powers not 

delegated to the United States by the 

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 

States.’’ However, Federal courts have 

long held that the NFA, GCA, and 

implementing regulations do not violate 

the Tenth Amendment. The NFA does 

not ‘‘usurp[ ] police power reserved to 

the States.’’ United States v. Miller, 307 

U.S. 174, 176 (1939). Further, ‘‘[b]ecause 

§ 922(o) was a proper exercise of 

Congress’s enumerated authority under 

the Commerce Clause, and because it 

does not compel, let alone commandeer, 

the states to do anything, the statute 

does not violate the Tenth 

Amendment.’’ United States v. Kenney, 

91 F.3d 884, 891 (7th Cir. 1996). 

f. Lack of Statutory Authority 

Comments Received 

A total of 47,863 commenters, most of 

whom sent form submissions opposed 

to the proposed rule, argued that ATF 

lacks statutory authority to regulate 

bump-stock-type devices. Many 

commenters said that ATF, by its own 

admission, repeatedly stated it could 

not regulate such devices. Commenters 

generally expressed the view that 

because bump-stock-type devices are 

not firearms, ATF has no authority 

under the NFA or GCA to regulate them. 

Some commenters contended that 6 

U.S.C. 531 gives ATF only narrow 

statutory authority and does not provide 

ATF general authority to regulate the 

safety of firearms, accessories, or parts. 

In addition, numerous commenters 

argued that, as the term ‘‘machinegun’’ 

is already clearly defined in the NFA, 

only Congress can make changes to the 

definition and regulate bump-stock-type 

devices. Furthermore, commenters 

stated that the agency’s interpretation of 

the term ‘‘machinegun’’ would not be 

entitled to deference under Chevron 

U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66527 

Department Response 

The Attorney General is responsible 

for enforcing the NFA, as amended, and 

the GCA, as amended. This includes the 

authority to promulgate regulations 

necessary to enforce the provisions of 

these statutes. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 

U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A), 7805(a). The 

statutory provision cited by some 

commenters, 6 U.S.C. 531, is the 

provision of the Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 

2135, that transferred the powers the 

Secretary of the Treasury had with 

respect to ATF to the Attorney General 

when ATF was transferred to the 

Department of Justice. Accordingly, the 

Attorney General is now responsible for 

enforcing the NFA and GCA, and he has 

delegated the responsibility for 

administering and enforcing the NFA 

and GCA to the Director of ATF, subject 

to the direction of the Attorney General 

and the Deputy Attorney General. See 

28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2). 

‘‘Because § 926 authorizes the 

[Attorney General] to promulgate those 

regulations which are ‘necessary,’ it 

almost inevitably confers some measure 

of discretion to determine what 

regulations are in fact ‘necessary.’’’ Nat’l 

Rifle Ass’n v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475, 479 

(4th Cir. 1990). In the original GCA 

implementing regulations, ATF 

provided regulatory definitions of the 

terms that Congress did not define in 

the statute. 33 FR 18555 (Dec. 14, 1968). 

Since 1968, ATF has occasionally added 

definitions to the implementing 

regulations. See, e.g., 63 FR 35520 (June 

30, 1998). Similarly, 26 U.S.C. 7805(a) 

states that ‘‘the [Attorney General] shall 

prescribe all needful rules and 

regulations for the enforcement of this 

title.’’ As is the case with the GCA, ATF 

has provided regulatory definitions for 

terms in the NFA that Congress did not 

define, such as ‘‘frame or receiver’’ and 

‘‘manual reloading.’’ See, e.g., 81 FR 

2658 (Jan. 15, 2016). These definitions 

were necessary to explain and 

implement the statute, and do not 

contradict the statute. Federal courts 

have recognized ATF’s authority to 

classify devices as ‘‘firearms’’ under 

Federal law. See, e.g., Demko v. United 

States, 44 Fed. Cl. 83, 93 (1999) 

(destructive device); Akins v. United 

States, 312 F. App’x 197 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(per curiam) (machinegun). 

This rule is based upon this authority. 

Further, ATF has provided technical 

and legal reasons why bump-stock-type 

devices enable automatic fire by a single 

function of the trigger, and thus qualify 

as machinegun conversion devices, not 

mere ‘‘accessories.’’ ATF has regularly 

classified items as machinegun 

‘‘conversion devices’’ or ‘‘combinations 

of parts,’’ including auto sears (ATF 

Ruling 81–4) and the Akins Accelerator 

(ATF Ruling 2006–2). 

The Department agrees that regulatory 

agencies may not promulgate rules that 

conflict with statutes. However, the 

Department disagrees that the rule 

conflicts with the statutes or is in 

contravention of administrative-law 

principles. The rule merely defines 

terms used in the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ that Congress did not— 

the terms ‘‘automatically’’ and ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’—as part of 

implementing the provisions of the NFA 

and GCA. 

When a court is called upon to review 

an agency’s construction of the statute it 

administers, the court looks to the 

framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 

(1984). The first step of the Chevron 

review is to ask ‘‘whether Congress has 

directly spoken to the precise question 

at issue.’’ Id. at 842. ‘‘If the intent of 

Congress is clear, that is the end of the 

matter; for the court, as well as the 

agency, must give effect to the 

unambiguously expressed intent of 

Congress. If, however, the court 

determines Congress has not directly 

addressed the precise question at 

issue . . . . the question for the court is 

whether the agency’s answer is based on 

a permissible construction of the 

statute.’’ Id. at 842–43 (footnote 

omitted). 

The Department believes that this 

rule’s interpretations of ‘‘automatically’’ 

and ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ in 

the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ accord with the plain 

meaning of those terms. Moreover, even 

if those terms are ambiguous, this rule 

rests on a reasonable construction of 

them. Although Congress defined 

‘‘machinegun’’ in the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 

5845(b), it did not further define the 

components of that definition. See, e.g., 

United States v. One TRW, Model M14, 

7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416, 419 

(6th Cir. 2006) (noting that the NFA 

does not define the phrases ‘‘designed to 

shoot’’ or ‘‘can be readily restored’’ in 

the definition of ‘‘machinegun’’). 

Congress thus implicitly left it to the 

Department to define ‘‘automatically’’ 

and ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ in 

the event those terms are ambiguous. 

See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. Courts 

have appropriately recognized that the 

Department has the authority to 

interpret elements of the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ like ‘‘automatically’’ and 

‘‘single function of the trigger.’’ See 

York v. Sec’y of Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 

419–20 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. 

Dodson, 519 F. App’x 344, 348–49 & n.4 

(6th Cir. 2013); cf., e.g., Firearms 

Import/Export Roundtable Trade Grp. v. 

Jones, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1, 18 (D.D.C. 

2012) (upholding ATF’s interpretation 

of 18 U.S.C. 925(d) to ban importation 

of certain firearm parts under Chevron 

‘‘step one’’); Modern Muzzleloading, 

Inc. v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35– 

36 (D.D.C. 1998) (‘‘since the ATF’s 

classification of [a firearm as not 

antique] ‘amounts to or involves its 

interpretation’ of the GCA, a statute 

administered by the ATF, we review 

that interpretation under the deferential 

standard announced in Chevron’’). 

Second, the Department’s 

construction of those terms is 

reasonable under Chevron. As explained 

in more detail in Part III, the 

Department is clarifying its regulatory 

definition of ‘‘automatically’’ to conform 

to how that word was understood and 

used when the NFA was enacted in 

1934. See Olofson, 563 F.3d at 658. And 

the Department is reaffirming that a 

single pull of the trigger is a single 

function of the trigger, consistent with 

the NFA’s legislative history, ATF’s 

previous determinations, and judicial 

precedent. See, e.g., Akins, 312 F. App’x 

at 200. This rule is therefore lawful 

under the NFA and GCA even if the 

operative statutory terms are ambiguous. 

g. Violation of the Americans With 

Disabilities Act 

Comments Received 

A few commenters indicated that 

bump-stock-type devices are assistive 

devices for people with nerve damage or 

a physical disability. A few commenters 

further stated that the regulation could 

be a violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ch. 

126. In particular, one commenter 

claimed that under the ADA, an 

individual can establish coverage under 

the law by ‘‘showing that he or she has 

been subjected to an action prohibited 

under the Act because of an actual or 

perceived physical [condition] that is 

not transitory and minor.’’ The 

commenter asserted that this regulation 

constitutes such ‘‘an action’’ and would 

violate the civil rights of a diverse group 

of persons with disabilities, including 

homeowners, veterans, target shooters, 

and hunters. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees with 

commenters that the final rule would 

violate the ADA. While the ADA applies 

to State and local governments, it does 

not apply to the Executive Branch of the 

Federal Government. See 42 U.S.C. 

12131(1) (defining ‘‘public entity’’ as 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66528 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

any State or local government; any 

department, agency, special purpose 

district, or other instrumentality of a 

State or States or local government; and 

the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation, and any commuter 

authority). Accordingly, because ATF is 

a Federal agency that is not subject to 

the ADA, the commenters’ assertion that 

ATF’s regulation would violate the ADA 

is incorrect. 

While not mentioned by commenters, 

ATF is covered by section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which 

prohibits discrimination, solely by 

reason of disability, in Federally 

conducted programs and activities. 29 

U.S.C. 794(a) (stating that ‘‘[n]o 

otherwise qualified individual with a 

disability . . . shall, solely by reason of 

her or his disability, be excluded from 

the participation in, be denied the 

benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under . . . any program 

or activity conducted by any Executive 

agency’’). As detailed above, the sole 

purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify 

that bump-stock-type devices satisfy the 

statutory definition of ‘‘machinegun,’’ as 

defined by Congress in the NFA and 

GCA. While a few commenters made 

general assertions that bump-stock-type 

devices can be used as assistive devices 

for people with disabilities, none 

submitted any specific information to 

suggest that this rule would cause 

qualified individuals with disabilities, 

solely by reason of their disability, to be 

excluded from the participation in, 

subjected to discrimination under, or 

denied the benefits of any program or 

activity of ATF. Accordingly, there is 

nothing in the record to suggest that this 

rule would raise concerns under the 

Rehabilitation Act. 

2. Politically Motivated and Emotional 

Response 

Comments Received 

At least 41,954 commenters opposed 

to the rule, including the 40,806 

comments submitted through the NAGR 

petition, asserted that the proposed rule 

is a political or knee-jerk response to a 

tragic incident. Many commenters 

suggested that the proposed rule 

reflected political pressure and would 

be a hasty response that would not 

achieve real benefits and could lead to 

confiscating all guns. A handful of 

commenters even asserted they would 

support the elimination of ATF. 

Petitions submitted through NAGR 

portray the rule as a response to ‘‘the 

anti-gun left . . . so they can turn 

millions of commonly owned firearms 

into ‘illegal guns’ with the stroke of a 

pen.’’ They cautioned that this rule 

unfairly capitalizes on the misfortunes 

of others to push political agendas and 

that facts should not be thrown aside. 

Another commenter said that this rule 

will be tainted because from the 

beginning the President made clear he 

had no intention of instructing the 

Department to abide by the public 

comments, having declared that bumpstock-type devices ‘‘will soon be out’’ 

after the ‘‘mandated comment period’’ 

notwithstanding possible congressional 

action. 

Department Response 

While the Las Vegas tragedy brought 

attention to bump-stock-type devices 

and requests from Congress and 

nongovernmental organizations 

prompted ATF to review its 

classification of bump-stock-type 

devices, the Department disagrees that 

this rulemaking is an unreasoned 

reaction to recent events. As discussed 

in the NPRM, see Part III above, ATF 

recognized that its prior classifications 

determining only some bump-stock-type 

devices to be machineguns did not 

include extensive legal analysis of 

certain terms that are significant to 

defining ‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA 

and were not always consistent. This 

final rule defines the terms 

‘‘automatically’’ and ‘‘single function of 

the trigger’’ to clarify the meaning of 

machinegun and to make clear that 

bump-stock-type devices are 

machineguns under the meaning of the 

statute. The Department further notes 

that the President specifically directed it 

to clarify the legal status of bump-stocktype devices through the administrative 

‘‘procedures the law prescribes,’’ 

including notice and comment. 83 FR 

7949 (Feb. 23, 2018). 

3. Not Used in Criminal Activity 

Comments Received 

Numerous commenters expressed that 

besides the shooting in Las Vegas, there 

is no evidence that bump-stock-type 

devices have been used in the 

commission of crimes. Several 

commenters stated that, pursuant to a 

Freedom of Information Act request, 

they asked ATF and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) for any records on 

whether bump-stock-type devices have 

been used in crimes and that they 

received no confirmation affirming the 

existence of any such records. 

Moreover, some commenters stated that 

ATF provided no evidence or 

justification that bump-stock-type 

devices will be used more frequently in 

future crimes. They argued that if the 

agency cannot show what materials it 

relied on to regulate bump-stock-type 

devices for purposes of public safety, 

then the rulemaking is arbitrary and 

capricious under the APA. Commenters 

cited judicial decisions such as Motor 

Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 

463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983), in which the 

Supreme Court held that when an 

agency rescinds or changes its stance on 

a regulation, it must explain the 

evidence underlying its decision and 

offer a rational connection between the 

facts found and the choice made. 

Many commenters also noted that 

there is still no confirmation or 

documentation, despite requests, from 

Federal agencies confirming that bumpstock-type devices were actually used in 

the Las Vegas incident, and that ATF 

has not issued a ‘‘Report of Technical 

Examination’’ (ATF Form 3311.2) for 

any of the firearms used in the incident. 

With questions remaining about the Las 

Vegas criminal investigation and doubts 

as to whether bump-stock-type devices 

were actually used, commenters argued 

that ATF has no basis to promulgate a 

regulation that, as ATF declared in the 

NPRM, ‘‘would affect the criminal use 

of bump-stock-type devices in mass 

shootings, such as the Las Vegas 

shooting incident.’’ 83 FR at 13454. 

These arguments were frequently 

raised alongside concerns that the costbenefit analysis did not address the fact 

that there would be few benefits to the 

rule given that bump-stock-type devices 

have supposedly been used in only one 

crime. These concerns are addressed in 

Part IV.I.5. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that ATF 

seeks to regulate bump-stock-type 

devices merely because they were, or 

have the potential to be, used in crime. 

The NPRM stated that the Las Vegas 

shooting made ‘‘individuals aware that 

these devices exist—potentially 

including persons with criminal or 

terrorist intentions—and made their 

potential to threaten public safety 

obvious.’’ 83 FR at 13447. But the 

NRPM also provided a detailed analysis 

explaining that bump-stock-type devices 

must be regulated because they satisfy 

the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ as it is defined in the 

NFA and GCA. Id. at 13447–48. 

Commenters conflate the legal basis 

for ATF’s regulation of bump-stock-type 

devices with the background 

information that was provided as 

context for the reason ATF revisited its 

previous classifications. In the NPRM, 

ATF explained that the tragedy in Las 

Vegas gave rise to requests from 

Congress and nongovernmental 

organizations that ATF examine its past 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66529 

classifications and determine whether 

bump-stock-type devices currently on 

the market constitute machineguns 

under the statutory definition. Id. at 

13446. While part of the Department’s 

mission is to enhance public safety, the 

impetus for the change in classification 

was not, as commenters argued, that the 

device may potentially pose a public 

safety threat but because, upon review, 

ATF believes that it satisfies the 

statutory definition of ‘‘machinegun.’’ 

This rule reflects the public safety 

objectives of the NFA and GCA, but the 

materials and evidence of public safety 

implications that commenters seek have 

no bearing on whether these devices are 

appropriately considered machineguns 

based on the statutory definition. 

In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n 

v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), the 

Supreme Court wrote that an ‘‘agency 

must examine the relevant data and 

articulate a satisfactory explanation for 

its action including a ‘rational 

connection between the facts found and 

the choice made.’ ’’ Id. at 43 (quoting 

Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United 

States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). 

However, that case involved a Federal 

agency that rescinded a final rule— 

based on data and policy choices— 

shortly after publication, arguing that 

that rule was no longer necessary for a 

multitude of reasons, including that the 

costs outweighed the safety benefits. See 

id. at 38–39. The Supreme Court 

recognized that any change requires a 

reasoned basis, noting that ‘‘[i]f 

Congress established a presumption 

from which judicial review should start, 

that presumption—contrary to 

petitioners’ views—is not against safety 

regulation, but against changes in 

current policy that are not justified by 

the rulemaking record.’’ Id. at 42. 

However, the revocation in that case 

involved a discretionary policy 

decision, and did not depend solely 

upon statutory construction. The bumpstock-type device rule is not a 

discretionary policy decision based 

upon a myriad of factors that the agency 

must weigh, but is instead based only 

upon the functioning of the device and 

the application of the relevant statutory 

definition. Therefore, the Department 

does not believe that this rule conflicts 

with State Farm. 

4. Will Not Enhance Public Safety 

Comments Received 

More than 1,100 commenters 

indicated that a regulation on bumpstock-type devices would have no 

measurable effect on the current rate of 

crime or enhance public safety. One 

commenter argued that the use of bumpstock-type devices by mass shooters 

might actually save lives based on his 

experience that using the device can 

result in a rifle jamming, misfeeding, or 

misfiring, which would be the best time 

to disrupt a shooter. Other commenters 

noted that bump-stock-type devices 

actually impede a shooter’s ability to 

fire accurately. Commenters stated that 

there is currently no empirical evidence 

that further firearms regulations would 

reduce crime or safeguard people more 

effectively. One commenter, for 

example, estimated that out of the tens 

of thousands of gun deaths per year, 

most of which he stated are suicides, the 

proposed rule would only impact a 

minute percentage, while another 

commenter opined that crime rate data 

from the FBI show that areas with more 

firearms restrictions have more crime. A 

handful of commenters pointed to 

Chicago as having some of the most 

stringent gun restrictions yet continuing 

to have high rates of homicide and gunrelated deaths that ‘‘surpass[] war 

zones.’’ 

Many commenters opposed to the 

regulation maintained that neither this 

rule nor any new gun laws will prevent 

criminals or people with malicious 

intent from proceeding to commit 

crimes. Several voiced the opinion that 

people determined to kill many people 

will find other means, such as cars, 

knives, toxic substances, homemade 

explosives, or any other object. The 

problem, they argued, is not the object, 

but the person who controls it—and that 

criminals will do whatever they can to 

accomplish unlawful ends. One 

commenter, identifying as a law 

enforcement officer, wrote that he 

frequently encounters prohibited 

possessors who still somehow obtain a 

firearm and do not care about the 

consequences. Another commenter 

stated that the fact that the shooter in 

Las Vegas was well aware that murder 

is unlawful but chose to ignore the law 

only serves as proof that laws do not 

stop evildoers. 

Additionally, several hundred 

commenters stated that ATF should 

focus its time and energy on enforcing 

existing gun laws and regulations rather 

than issuing a new one. One 

commenter, a former corrections officer 

from Baltimore, suggested that time 

would be better spent prosecuting 

criminals for crimes on the books. 

Similarly, another commenter noted 

that ‘‘[w]hen the courtrooms are 

revolving doors that push gang members 

right back out,’’ the problem is not the 

lack of laws but rather a lack of tools 

and resources devoted to enforcing the 

existing laws. Some commenters 

remarked that had there been better 

policing, certain mass shootings could 

have been avoided. 

Department Response 

The Department agrees with the 

commenters that the existing laws 

should be enforced, and the Department 

is committed to addressing significant 

violent crime problems facing our 

communities. No law or regulation 

entirely prevents particular crimes, but 

the Las Vegas shooting illustrated the 

particularly destructive capacity of 

bump-stock-type devices when used in 

mass shooting incidents. In any event, 

the impetus for this rule is the 

Department’s belief, after a detailed 

review, that bump-stock-type devices 

satisfy the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ Through the NFA and 

GCA, Congress took steps to regulate 

machineguns because it determined that 

machineguns were a public safety 

threat. ATF must therefore classify 

devices that satisfy the statutory 

definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ as 

machineguns. The proposed rule is thus 

lawful and necessary to provide public 

guidance on the law. 

5. Punishes Law-Abiding Citizens 

Comments Received 

At least 2,103 commenters opposed 

the rule on the ground that it would 

punish law-abiding citizens and would 

turn them instantly into potential 

felons. They asserted that hundreds of 

thousands of law-abiding citizens are 

being punished for the acts of one evil 

person and that the overwhelming 

majority use bump-stock-type devices 

lawfully and for fun. Many commenters, 

some of whom do not own a bumpstock-type device, objected that owners 

of these devices would become felons 

overnight just for owning a piece of 

plastic that is not needed to achieve 

bump firing. They further pointed out 

that because there is no grandfathering 

provision, law-abiding gun owners 

would have to surrender any bumpstock-type devices after having spent 

money to buy them. Many raised these 

objections in connection with concerns 

that the rule is unconstitutional under 

the Ex Post Facto Clause and the 

Takings Clause of the Constitution, as 

already discussed in this preamble. 

Moreover, some commenters, concerned 

that the rule’s proposed language could 

later apply to other trigger assemblies, 

stated that thousands of law-abiding 

citizens may eventually become 

criminals overnight for simply owning a 

non-factory trigger. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66530 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that lawabiding citizens would instantly become 

felons under this rule. This final rule 

provides specific information about 

acceptable methods of disposal, as well 

as the timeframe under which disposal 

must be accomplished to avoid violating 

18 U.S.C. 922(o). Current possessors of 

bump-stock-type devices who properly 

destroy or abandon their devices will 

avoid criminal liability. As described in 

Part IV.D.1.b, this is not a compensable 

‘‘taking’’ of property under the 

Constitution. 

6. Other Priorities and Efficiencies 

Comments Received 

Hundreds of commenters who oppose 

the rule suggested that the focus should 

not be on any new gun regulation but 

rather on an array of other issues, 

including addressing mental health, 

drug addiction, education, civility, and 

the decline of parenting and morals. 

Many argued that more resources 

should be devoted to treating the 

mentally ill or to the opioid epidemic, 

including ensuring that law 

enforcement and mental health agencies 

have the power to incarcerate and 

institutionalize people who are a danger 

to themselves or others. Several others 

suggested that resources should be 

devoted to securing public spaces, 

observing that the U.S. Capitol and all 

Federal buildings have armed security 

but many schools and workplaces do 

not. Numerous commenters noted that 

other improvements are needed before 

any new gun restriction is pursued, 

such as improving records in the 

National Instant Criminal Background 

Check System (NICS), properly charging 

persons with crimes that would bar 

them from owning firearms, or 

addressing bullying and teaching morals 

and the Bible in schools. One 

commenter suggested the Government 

investigate the social changes that are 

turning men into killers, while another 

said that to make a difference, one needs 

to go after the videogame industry and 

Hollywood movies that glorify carnage, 

body counts, murder, and violence. 

Commenters argued that only once these 

issues are tackled can discussion of new 

gun regulations begin. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments regarding treatment of mental 

health and drug addiction, securing 

schools and workplaces, improving 

records in the NICS system, and various 

social issues. The Department agrees 

that these are important issues, but they 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Several of these matters were raised as 

alternatives for the Department to 

consider. See Part IV.F for further 

discussion of alternatives. 

7. Enforcement and Compliance 

Comments Received 

Some commenters questioned how 

ATF will enforce this regulation, and a 

few stated that they or people they 

know of will not comply with this rule 

should it go into effect. Several 

questioned whether the agency would 

send armed agents to visit homes and 

confiscate bump-stock-type devices, 

while others pointed out that because 

bump-stock-type devices have not been 

tracked in any way, confiscation will 

depend on volunteers. Commenters 

highlighted the lack of success that 

certain States, such as Massachusetts, 

have had in collecting bump-stock-type 

devices after passing laws restricting 

their possession. Many commenters 

suggested it would be a waste of ATF 

employees’ time and public funds for 

ATF to implement the rule. Several 

others remarked that confiscation or 

enforcement would be easily 

circumvented because new technology 

like 3D printing and CNC (Computer 

Numeric Control) equipment 

(computerized milling machines), or 

even traditional manufacturing 

methods, will facilitate a black market 

in homemade bump-stock-type devices. 

One commenter submitted to ATF ‘‘a 

fully functional’’ bump-stock equivalent 

that was created ‘‘using super glue, 2- 

part epoxy, an AR–15 A2 pistol grip, 

threaded steel rods, and small ABS 

plastic bricks [i.e., Legos].’’ 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on enforcement of and 

compliance with the rule. As stated in 

the NPRM, current possessors of bumpstock-type devices will be obligated to 

dispose of these devices. Acceptable 

methods of destruction include 

completely melting, shredding, or 

crushing the device. If the device is 

made of metal, an alternative acceptable 

method of destruction is using an oxy/ 

acetylene torch to make three angled 

cuts that completely severs design 

features critical to the functionality of 

the bump-stock-type device. Each cut 

should remove at least 1⁄4 inch of metal 

per cut. Any method of destruction 

must render the device so that it is not 

readily restorable to a firing condition or 

is otherwise reduced to scrap. However, 

as the majority of bump-stock-type 

devices are made of plastic material, 

individuals may use a hammer to break 

them apart so that the device is not 

readily restorable to a firing condition or 

is otherwise reduced to scrap, and 

throw the pieces away. 

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-stocktype devices will have until the effective 

date of the rule (90 days from the date 

of publication in the Federal Register) 

to comply. Additional information on 

the destruction of bump-stock-type 

devices will be available at www.atf.gov. 

8. Lack of Consistency 

Comments Received 

Hundreds of commenters indicated 

that ATF’s reversal of position from its 

earlier determinations and insistence 

that a bump-stock-type device now 

qualifies as a machinegun under the 

NFA ‘‘hurts [the agency’s] credibility.’’ 

As one commenter remarked, the 

perpetual state of inconsistencies, 

whereby products are approved and 

then later ruled to be illegal by ATF, 

‘‘creates an air of fear and distrust in the 

gunowning public,’’ and moreover, 

‘‘calls into question the validity and 

competence of the very agency charged 

with making these determinations.’’ 

Several commenters argued that ATF’s 

lack of consistency only serves to 

increase distrust of the agency, the 

Government, and the legal process. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments regarding the inconsistency 

in ATF’s previous classifications of 

some bump-stock-type devices as 

machineguns and others as nonmachineguns. As described in Part III, 

upon review, ATF recognized that the 

decisions issued between 2008 and 2017 

did not provide consistent or extensive 

legal analysis regarding the term 

‘‘automatically’’ as that term applies to 

bump-stock-type devices. Consistent 

with its authority to reconsider and 

rectify its past classifications, the 

Department accordingly clarifies that 

the definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ in the 

NFA and GCA includes bump-stocktype devices because they convert an 

otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a 

machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that 

harnesses the recoil energy of the 

semiautomatic firearm in a manner that 

allows the trigger to reset and continue 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. The Supreme Court has made 

clear that this sort of regulatory 

correction is permissible. An agency 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66531 

may change its course as long as it 

‘‘suppl[ies] a reasoned analysis for the 

change,’’ which the Department has 

done at length in the NPRM and this 

final rule. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 

29, 42 (1983). And the agency bears no 

heightened burden in prescribing 

regulations that displace inconsistent 

previous regulatory actions. FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 

514–15 (2009). 

9. Earlier Determinations Correct 

Comments Received 

Over 1,500 commenters opposed to 

the rule maintained that ATF’s earlier 

classifications determining certain 

bump-stock-type devices not to be 

subject to the NFA or GCA were correct 

and should not be reversed. These 

commenters stated that reversing this 

position is unnecessary and unlawful. 

To make the point that ATF is bound by 

its prior determinations, many 

commenters submitted ATF’s own 

classification letters and highlighted the 

Department’s arguments made in 

litigation as evidence that the rule on 

bump-stock-type devices is an arbitrary 

decision. In particular, commenters 

cited the Department’s arguments made 

in litigation with Freedom Ordnance 

Manufacturing, Inc. (‘‘Freedom 

Ordnance’’), No. 3:16–cv–243 (S.D. Ind. 

filed Dec. 13, 2016). There, the 

Department defended its decision to 

classify Freedom Ordnance’s Electronic 

Reset Assistant Device (ERAD) as a 

machinegun. In responding to Freedom 

Ordnance’s argument that the ERAD 

was a bump-stock-type device and not 

subject to regulation, the Department 

stated such stocks were not 

machineguns because ‘‘[b]ump firing 

requires the shooter to manually and 

simultaneously pull and push the 

firearm in order for it to continue 

firing.’’ Brief for ATF in Support of 

Motion for Summary Judgment and in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, ECF No. 28, at 21 

(July 27, 2017). These prior decisions 

and admissions, commenters argued, 

preclude the Department from suddenly 

reversing its decision. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that 

ATF previously determined that certain 

bump-stock-type devices were not 

‘‘machineguns’’ under the law. The 

Department notes, however, that a great 

deal of its analysis in the Freedom 

Ordnance litigation was fully consistent 

with its position in this rule. For 

example, the Department adhered to its 

view that a single pull is a ‘‘single 

function’’ of the trigger, see id. at 13–14, 

and it argued that a device that relieves 

the shooter from having to ‘‘pull and 

release the trigger for each individual, 

subsequent shot’’ converts the firearm 

into a machinegun, id. at 22. While the 

Department accepted the previous 

classification of some bump-stock-type 

devices as non-machineguns, it relied 

on the mistaken premise that the need 

for ‘‘shooter input’’ (i.e., maintenance of 

pressure) for firing with bump-stocktype devices means that such devices do 

not enable ‘‘automatic’’ firing, see id. at 

21—even though Freedom Ordnance’s 

ERAD also required maintenance of 

pressure by the shooter, see id. at 20. 

In any event, as explained in the 

NPRM, the Department believes that 

ATF clearly has authority to ‘‘reconsider 

and rectify’’ its classification errors. 

Akins, 312 F. App’x at 200; see also Fox, 

556 U.S. at 514–15; Hollis v. Lynch, 121 

F. Supp. 3d 617, 642 (N.D. Tex. 2015) 

(no due process violation in ATF’s 

revocation of mistaken approval to 

manufacture a machinegun). In the 

NPRM, the Department noted that ‘‘ATF 

has reviewed its original classification 

determinations for bump-stock-type 

devices from 2008 to 2017 in light of its 

interpretation of the relevant statutory 

language, namely the definition of 

‘machinegun.’ ’’ 83 FR at 13446. The 

NPRM explained that ‘‘ATF’s 

classifications of bump-stock-type 

devices between 2008 and 2017 did not 

include extensive legal analysis of these 

terms in concluding that the bumpstock-type devices at issue were not 

‘machineguns.’ ’’ Id. Specifically, some 

of these rulings concluded that such 

devices were not machineguns because 

they did not ‘‘‘initiate [ ] an automatic 

firing cycle that continues until either 

the finger is released or the ammunition 

supply is exhausted,’ ’’ but did not 

provide a definition or explanation of 

the term ‘‘automatically.’’ Id. at 13445. 

This is precisely the purpose of this 

rule. As explained in more detail in Part 

III, the Department has determined that 

bump-stock-type devices enable a 

shooter to initiate an automatic firing 

sequence with a single pull of the 

trigger, making the devices 

machineguns under the NFA and GCA. 

Consistent with the APA, this rule is the 

appropriate means for ATF to set forth 

its analysis for its changed assessment. 

See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State 

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 

57 (1983). 

10. Bump Firing and Bump-Stock-Type 

Device Operation 

a. Bump-Stock-Type Device Operation 

Comments Received 

More than 17,000 commenters argued 

that ATF cannot proceed because its 

description of how bump-stock-type 

devices operate is inaccurate and that 

the proposed rule is based on a false 

premise. Commenters emphatically 

argued that bump-stock-type devices do 

not make a semiautomatic firearm shoot 

automatically by a single function of the 

trigger. They stated: (1) No part of the 

bump-stock-type device touches the 

trigger itself, but rather touches only the 

shooter’s trigger finger, and (2) if bumpstock-type devices made semiautomatic 

rifles fully automatic, then holding the 

gun with only the trigger finger hand 

while depressing the trigger should 

cause the gun to repeatedly fire, which 

does not happen when a rifle is affixed 

with a bump-stock-type device. One 

commenter said that should ATF be 

asked to demonstrate the firing of a rifle 

equipped with a bump-stock-type 

device with the shooter only using his 

trigger hand, and no coordinated input 

from the other hand, it could not be 

done, as it requires two hands, skill, and 

coordination. Similarly, another 

commenter asserted that while various 

manual bump-firing techniques ‘‘vary in 

difficulty and are arguably more 

difficult to master than the use of a 

bump-stock-type device, the fact is that 

they use exactly the same principle as 

a bump-stock-type device without the 

use of such a device, and thus the 

device itself cannot be the ‘primary 

impetus for a firing sequence’ as 

described.’’ 

Several commenters raised specific 

objections to ATF’s description in the 

NPRM that a bump-stock-type device 

‘‘harnesses the recoil energy [of a 

firearm] to slide the firearm back and 

forth so that the trigger automatically reengages by ‘bumping’ the shooter’s 

stationary trigger finger without 

additional physical manipulation of the 

trigger by the shooter’’ and that the 

device is ‘‘a self-acting and selfregulating force that channels the 

firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous 

back-and-forth cycle that allows the 

shooter to attain continuous firing after 

a single pull of the trigger so long as the 

trigger finger remains stationary on the 

device’s extension ledge (as designed).’’ 

83 FR at 13443. These commenters 

disputed these descriptions, stating that 

a bump-stock-type device does not 

harness any recoil energy and there is 

nothing that makes it an energy sink 

(such as a spring) that stores recoil 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66532 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

energy to move the firearm forward. 

Further, they argued that further 

physical manipulation is required to 

operate a firearm equipped with a 

bump-stock-type device—specifically, 

the shooter must physically manipulate 

the trigger after every shot fired by 

pushing the firearm forward to reengage the trigger. 

The bump-stock firing sequence is not 

automatic, commenters argued, because 

trigger reset is not caused by a 

mechanical device, part, or combination 

of parts associated with pulling the 

trigger. Reset occurs, they said, only if 

continuous forward motion and 

pressure is applied by the non-trigger 

hand or arm of the shooter, not the 

device. As described by some 

commenters, ‘‘[t]he trigger of a 

semiautomatic firearm in a bump-stock 

type device is being repeatedly actuated, 

functioned, pulled (take your pick) by 

the non trigger hand of the shooter 

pushing the firearm forward. That 

actuation, function, [or] pull can and 

often does occur entirely independent of 

recoil. Recoil is incidental to the firing 

sequence of a bump-stock type device 

equipped semiautomatic firearm, not 

intrinsic.’’ In challenging ATF’s 

proposed rule and description of how 

these devices operate, one commenter 

asked ATF to provide the history of the 

machinegun and semiautomatic 

firearms, along with a discussion of the 

differences between the mechanical and 

legal definitions. 

In sum, commenters argued that 

because ATF’s premise of how bumpstock-type devices operate is inaccurate, 

there is no basis for ATF to regulate 

them as machineguns. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that ATF’s 

description of how bump-stock-type 

devices operate is inaccurate. ATF 

explained that bump-stock-type devices 

‘‘are generally designed to operate with 

the shooter shouldering the stock of the 

device (in essentially the same manner 

a shooter would use an unmodified 

semiautomatic shoulder stock), 

maintaining constant forward pressure 

with the non-trigger hand on the barrelshroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and 

maintaining the trigger finger on the 

device’s extension ledge with constant 

rearward pressure.’’ 83 FR at 13443. The 

Department believes that this accurately 

describes the operation of these devices. 

Further, ATF explained that bumpstock-type devices ‘‘are designed to 

allow the shooter to maintain a 

continuous firing cycle after a single 

pull of the trigger by directing the recoil 

energy of the discharged rounds into the 

space created by the sliding stock 

(approximately 1.5 inches) in 

constrained linear rearward and forward 

paths.’’ Id. This is a distinctive feature 

of bump-stock-type devices and enables 

the unique functioning and operation of 

these devices. The bump-stock-type 

device captures and harnesses the 

firearm’s recoil to maintain a 

continuous firing sequence, and thus is 

properly described as ‘‘a self-acting or 

self-regulating mechanism.’’ The very 

purpose of a bump-stock-type device is 

to eliminate the need for the shooter to 

manually capture, harness, or otherwise 

utilize this energy to fire additional 

rounds, as one would have to do to 

‘‘bump fire’’ without a bump-stock-type 

device. Further, this mechanism ‘‘allows 

the firing of multiple rounds through a 

single function of the trigger’’ because, 

as explained in the NPRM, ATF’s 

interpretation that the phrase ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ includes a 

‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ ‘‘is 

consonant with the statute and its 

legislative history.’’ Akins v. United 

States, 312 F. App’x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 

2009) (per curiam). 

The Department agrees with the 

commenters that ‘‘[n]o part of the bump 

stock touches the trigger, only the 

shooter[’]s trigger finger.’’ However, this 

is neither legally nor technically 

determinative. The fact that a bumpstock-type device does not touch the 

trigger does not mean that the device 

has not acted automatically (by 

directing and utilizing recoil energy) or 

that anything other than a single pull of 

the trigger occurred. That is, the bumpstock-type device remains ‘‘a self-acting 

or self-regulating mechanism’’ for the 

reasons described in this section. The 

fact that bump-stock-type devices do not 

touch the trigger does not mean that 

they do not qualify as machineguns 

within the meaning of the NFA and 

GCA. ATF has provided a thorough 

explanation of their functioning, 

showing that a semiautomatic firearm 

utilizing a bump-stock-type device 

‘‘shoots automatically more than one 

shot, without manual reloading, by a 

single function of the trigger.’’ 26 U.S.C. 

5845(b). 

Additionally, the Department 

disagrees that to be classified as a 

‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA, a firearm 

must fire ‘‘repeatedly’’ when a shooter 

holds and fires the gun with only the 

trigger-finger hand. Any such argument 

misconstrues the meaning of 

‘‘automatically.’’ As explained above, 

bump-stock-type devices operate 

automatically because their design 

eliminates the requirement that a 

shooter manually capture and direct 

recoil energy to fire additional rounds. 

In this way, semiautomatic firearms 

shoot ‘‘automatically’’ when equipped 

with bump-stock-type devices in that 

their recoil energy is channeled through 

these ‘‘self-acting or self-regulating 

mechanisms.’’ The commenters’ 

positions reflect previous analysis that 

ATF is now correcting. ATF explained 

above that ‘‘[p]rior ATF rulings 

concerning bump-stock-type devices 

have not provided substantial legal 

analysis regarding the meaning of the 

term ‘automatically’ as it is used in the 

GCA and NFA.’’ 83 FR at 13445. 

The Department disagrees that a 

shooter repeatedly actuates, functions, 

or pulls the trigger of a semiautomatic 

firearm using a bump-stock-type device 

with the non-trigger hand by ‘‘pushing 

the firearm forward.’’ In fact, the shooter 

‘‘pulls’’ the trigger once and allows the 

firearm and attached bump-stock-type 

device to operate until the shooter 

releases the trigger finger or the constant 

forward pressure with the non-trigger 

hand. The non-trigger hand never comes 

in contact with the trigger and does not 

actuate, function, or pull it. By 

maintaining constant forward pressure, 

a shooter relies on the device to capture 

and direct recoil energy for each 

subsequent round and requires no 

further manipulation of the trigger itself. 

In this way, the Department also 

disagrees that ‘‘[r]ecoil is incidental to 

the firing sequence of a bump-stock type 

device equipped semiautomatic firearm, 

not intrinsic.’’ Without recoil and the 

capture and directing of that recoil 

energy, a bump-stock-type device would 

be no different from a traditional 

shoulder stock. As numerous 

commenters acknowledged, bumpstock-type devices allow shooters to fire 

semiautomatic firearms at a faster rate 

and in a different manner than they 

could with traditional shoulder stocks. 

Bump-stock-type devices do this by 

capturing and directing recoil 

mechanically, enabling continuous fire 

without repeated manual manipulation 

of the trigger by a shooter. 

b. Bump-Stock-Type Device Firing 

Technique 

Comments Received 

Thousands of commenters objected to 

the proposed rule on grounds that 

bump-stock-type devices are novelty 

items that assist with bump firing, 

which is a technique that any shooter 

can perform with training or with 

everyday items such as a rubber band or 

belt loop. Many commenters stated that 

all semiautomatic firearms can be bump 

fired by a shooter simply holding the 

trigger finger stationary and pushing the 

weapon forward until the trigger is 

depressed against it to the point of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66533 

firing, and that use of bump-stock-type 

devices makes using the bump-fire 

shooting technique safer for the shooter 

and those around the shooter. Some 

commenters also gave examples of 

extremely skilled and fast shooters who 

do not need any assistive device or item 

to fire a semiautomatic firearm at a 

rapid rate. Commenters therefore argued 

that if the Department proceeds to 

prohibit possession of bump-stock-type 

devices they must also ban rubber 

bands, belt loops, string, or even 

people’s fingers. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees with 

commenters’ assessments and believes 

that bump-stock-type devices are 

objectively different from items such as 

belt loops that are designed for a 

different primary purpose but can serve 

an incidental function of assisting with 

bump firing. To bump fire a firearm 

using a belt loop or a similar method 

without a bump-stock-type device, a 

shooter must put his thumb against the 

trigger and loop that thumb through a 

belt loop. With the non-trigger hand, the 

shooter then pushes the firearm forward 

until the thumb engages the trigger and 

the firearm fires. The recoil pushes the 

firearm backwards as the shooter 

controls the distance of the recoil, and 

the trigger resets. The constant forward 

pressure with the non-trigger hand 

pushes the firearm forward, again 

pulling the firearm forward, engaging 

the trigger, and firing a second round. 

This rule defines the term 

‘‘automatically’’ to mean ‘‘functioning 

as the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism.’’ Bump-stocktype devices enable semiautomatic 

firearms to operate ‘‘automatically’’ 

because they serve as a self-acting or 

self-regulating mechanism. An item like 

a belt loop is not a ‘‘self-acting or selfregulating mechanism.’’ When such 

items are used for bump firing, no 

device is present to capture and direct 

the recoil energy; rather, the shooter 

must do so. Conversely, bump-stocktype devices are specifically designed to 

capture the recoil energy, a force that 

initiates a firing sequence that 

ultimately produces more than one shot. 

That firing sequence is ‘‘automatic’’ 

because the device harnesses the 

firearm’s recoil energy as part of a 

continuous back-and-forth cycle that 

allows the shooter to attain continuous 

firing after a single pull of the trigger. 

Bump firing utilizing a belt loop or 

similar method of maintaining tension 

on the firearm is thus more difficult 

than using a bump-stock-type device. In 

fact, the belt-loop method provides a 

stabilizing point for the trigger finger 

but relies on the shooter—not a device— 

to harness the recoil energy so that the 

trigger automatically re-engages by 

‘‘bumping’’ the shooter’s stationary 

trigger finger. Unlike a bump-stock-type 

device, the belt loop or a similar manual 

method requires the shooter to control 

the distance that the firearm recoils and 

the movement along the plane on which 

the firearm recoils. 

ATF’s previous bump-stock-type 

device classifications determined that 

these devices enable continuous firing 

by a single function of the trigger. Other 

firing techniques may do the same 

because they rely on a single ‘‘pull.’’ 

However, as ATF has made clear, a 

determining factor is whether the device 

operates or functions automatically. The 

proposed and final rules make clear that 

if a device incorporates a self-acting or 

self-regulating component for the firing 

cycle, the firearm equipped with the 

device operates automatically. Again, 

this differs from traditional 

semiautomatic firearms because the 

trigger must be repeatedly manipulated 

by the shooter to fire additional rounds, 

whereas a bump-stock-type device 

allows for a single pull, and the selfacting or self-regulating device 

automatically re-engages the trigger 

finger. 

Further, while skilled shooters may be 

able to fire more rapidly than a shooter 

employing a bump-stock-type device on 

a semiautomatic firearm, they do so by 

pulling and releasing the trigger for each 

shot fired. This is a fundamental 

distinction between skilled shooters and 

those employing bump-stock-type 

devices. Bump-stock-type devices 

require that a shooter pull the trigger to 

fire the first round and merely maintain 

the requisite pressure to fire subsequent 

rounds. This is the purpose of a bumpstock-type device—to make rapid firing 

easier without the need to pull and 

release the trigger repeatedly. This 

shows that skilled shooters would be 

unaffected by the proposed rule and 

counters commenters’ arguments that 

the rule is ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ on 

these grounds. 

11. Proposed Definitions 

a. Vagueness—Rate of Fire 

Comments Received 

Many commenters focused on the 

increased rate of fire associated with 

bump-stock-type devices and objected 

to the proposed regulation being ‘‘based, 

at least in part, on the idea that bump 

stocks are machineguns because they 

‘allow[ ] ‘‘rapid fire’’ of the 

semiautomatic firearm,’ ‘increase the 

rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms,’ 

and ‘mimic automatic fire’ ’’ (quoting 83 

FR at 13443–44). Commenters objected 

to classifying bump-stock-type devices 

as machineguns because ‘‘a high rate of 

fire alone does not transform a semiautomatic into an automatic weapon 

under the NFA.’’ 

Additionally, other commenters 

objected to classifying other ‘‘rateincreasing devices’’ as machineguns 

because doing so would require a 

standard rate of fire to be defined, 

which some said is impossible, or 

would capture certain semiautomatic 

firearms and firearms accessories. A few 

commenters pointed out that ‘‘[t]rue 

machine guns do not require freedom to 

oscillate fore and aft to increase their 

rate of fire. The rate of fire of a machine 

gun is intrinsic to the weapon and 

completely independent of the shooter’s 

manual dexterity, the firing position, the 

number of hands holding the firearm, 

and any degree of freedom of motion. 

. . . Bump stocks do not increase the 

rate of fire when the semiautomatic 

firearm is operated with only one 

hand—even when shouldered. The 

human element is indispensable to any 

firing rate increase achieved with a 

bump stock.’’ 

Department Response 

The Department has neither proposed 

the rate of fire as a factor in classifying 

machineguns, nor utilized this as the 

applicable standard in the proposed 

rule. The Department disagrees with any 

assertion that the rule is based upon the 

increased rate of fire. While bumpstock-type devices are intended to 

increase the rate at which a shooter may 

fire a semiautomatic firearm, this rule 

classifies these devices based upon the 

functioning of these devices under the 

statutory definition. The Department 

believes that bump-stock-type devices 

satisfy the statutory definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’ because bump-stock-type 

devices utilize the recoil energy of the 

firearm to create an automatic firing 

sequence with a single pull of the 

trigger. The rate of fire is not relevant to 

this determination. 

The Department also agrees with 

commenters that the standard rate of fire 

of a semiautomatic firearm or 

machinegun is a characteristic that is 

not dependent upon the individual 

shooter. Any reference to the 

‘‘increased’’ rate of fire attributable to 

bump-stock-type devices refers only to 

the increased rate of fire that a 

particular shooter may achieve. Further, 

the Department agrees that there is no 

rate of fire that can identify or 

differentiate a machinegun from a 

semiautomatic firearm. This is because 

the statutory definition alone 

determines whether a firearm is a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66534 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

machinegun. The Department believes 

that the final rule makes clear that a 

bump-stock-device will be classified as 

a machinegun based only upon whether 

the device satisfies the statutory 

definition. 

b. Vagueness—Impact on 

Semiautomatic Firearms and Other 

Firearm Accessories 

Comments Received 

More than 56,000 commenters, 

including those submitting through the 

three main form letters opposing the 

rule and the NAGR submission, 

indicated that the proposed rule would 

set a dangerous precedent because a 

future ‘‘anti-gun Administration’’ will 

use it to confiscate millions of legally 

owned semiautomatic firearms as well 

as firearm components and accessories. 

Commenters opposed to the rule 

broadly argued that by classifying 

bump-stock-type devices as 

machineguns, AR–15s and other 

semiautomatic firearms also may be 

classified as machineguns. In particular, 

commenters stated that under the GCA, 

rifles and shotguns are defined using a 

‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ standard, in 

contrast to machineguns, which are 

defined by a ‘‘single function of the 

trigger’’ standard under the NFA. 

Commenters argued that by defining 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean 

‘‘single pull of the trigger,’’ the rule will 

bring all semiautomatic rifles and 

shotguns currently regulated under the 

GCA under the purview of the NFA. 

Commenters also argued that the 

proposed regulatory text encompasses a 

number of commercially available 

items, such as Gatling guns, competition 

triggers, binary triggers, Hellfire trigger 

mechanisms, or even drop-in 

replacement triggers. One commenter 

pointed out that the language ‘‘firing 

without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by shooter’’ 

would apply, for instance, to Model 37 

pump shotguns made by Ithaca. 

Several commenters said that the 

proposed rule should be more narrowly 

tailored so that it applies to bump-stocktype devices only. For instance, one 

commenter proposed that the following 

be added to the definition of bumpstock-type device: ‘‘A single accessory 

capable of performing the roles of both 

a pistol grip and a shoulder stock.’’ 

Another commenter suggested that, at 

most, one sentence could be added at 

the end of the definition of 

‘‘machinegun’’: 

For purposes of this definition, the term 

‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies ‘‘shoots, is 

designed to shoot, or can be readily restored 

to shoot,’’ means a device that—(1) attaches 

to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in section 

921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code); (2) 

is designed and intended to repeatedly 

activate the trigger without the deliberate and 

volitional act of the user pulling the trigger 

each time the firearm is fired; and (3) 

functions by continuous forward pressure 

applied to the rifle’s fore end in conjunction 

with a linear forward and backward sliding 

motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil 

energy when the rifle is discharged. 

One commenter suggested that, instead 

of trying to define a bump-stock-type 

device, it would be better to issue a rule 

stating that one cannot modify or 

replace the current style of stock with 

one that contains other features, with 

exceptions for adjusting the length of 

the stock or having a cheek rest. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that other 

firearms or devices, such as rifles, 

shotguns, and binary triggers, will be 

reclassified as machineguns under this 

rule. Although rifles and shotguns are 

defined using the term ‘‘single pull of 

the trigger,’’ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(5), (7), the 

statutory definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ 

also requires that the firearm ‘‘shoots 

automatically more than one shot, 

without manual reloading,’’ by a single 

function of the trigger, 26 U.S.C. 

5845(b). While semiautomatic firearms 

may shoot one round when the trigger 

is pulled, the shooter must release the 

trigger before another round is fired. 

Even if this release results in a second 

shot being fired, it is as the result of a 

separate function of the trigger. This is 

also the reason that binary triggers 

cannot be classified as ‘‘machineguns’’ 

under the rule—one function of the 

trigger results in the firing of only one 

round. By contrast, a bump-stock-type 

device utilizes the recoil energy of the 

firearm itself to create an automatic 

firing sequence with a single pull of the 

trigger. The Department notes that ATF 

has already described a ‘‘single pull of 

the trigger’’ as a ‘‘single function of the 

trigger.’’ See ATF Ruling 2006–2. 

Further, while the phrase ‘‘firing 

without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter’’ would apply to firearms like 

the Model 37 pump shotguns made by 

Ithaca, that firearm could not be 

classified as a machinegun under the 

rule. The Model 37 permits a shooter to 

pull the trigger, hold it back, and pump 

the fore-end. The pump-action ejects the 

spent shell and loads a new shell that 

fires as soon as it is loaded. While this 

operates by a single function of the 

trigger, it does not shoot 

‘‘automatically,’’ and certainly does not 

shoot ‘‘without manual reloading.’’ 26 

U.S.C. 5845(b). In fact, the pump-action 

design requires that the shooter take 

action to manually load the firearm for 

each shot fired. 

The Department disagrees that 

‘‘automatically’’ should be defined 

using the more extensive definition 

quoted above. Whereas analysis as to 

what constitutes a ‘‘single function of 

the trigger’’ is separate from whether a 

firearm shoots automatically, the 

commenter’s proposed definition 

merges the two issues. The Department 

believes that this may lead to confusion, 

further complicate the issue, and result 

in further questions that require 

clarification. 

c. Concerns Raised by Equating 

‘‘Function’’ and ‘‘Pull’’ 

Comments Received 

One commenter said drafters of the 

NFA chose the term ‘‘function’’ 

intentionally and that by proposing to 

equate ‘‘function’’ with ‘‘pull,’’ a whole 

new fully automatic non-machinegun 

market will be opened because ‘‘fire 

initiated by voice command, electronic 

switch, swipe on a touchscreen or pad, 

or any conceivable number of interfaces 

[does] not requir[e] a pull.’’ The 

commenter suggested that ‘‘single 

function of a trigger’’ be defined to 

include but not be limited to a pull, as 

that would include bump-stock-type 

devices without opening a ‘‘can of 

worms.’’ 

Department Response 

The proposed addition to the 

regulatory definition of machinegun 

includes this statement: ‘‘For purposes 

of this definition, the term ‘single 

function of the trigger’ means a ‘single 

pull of the trigger.’ ’’ The Department 

believes that the commenter is correct— 

this proposed definition may lead to 

confusion. The proposed definition 

suggests that only a single pull of the 

trigger will qualify as a single function. 

However, it is clear that a push or other 

method of initiating the firing cycle 

must also be considered a ‘‘single 

function of the trigger.’’ Machineguns 

such as the M134 Minigun utilize a 

button or an electric switch as the 

trigger. See 83 FR at 13447 n.8 

(explaining that other methods of trigger 

activation are analogous to pulling a 

trigger). 

Therefore, the Department concurs 

with the commenters and has modified 

the proposed definition so that in this 

final rule the regulatory text will state 

that ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ 

means a ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ and 

analogous motions rather than a ‘‘single 

pull of the trigger.’’ Although the case 

law establishes that a ‘‘single pull’’ is a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66535 

8OMB Circular A–4, Regulatory Analysis, at 2 

(Sept. 17, 2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 9 Id. at 7. 

10 Id. at 11. 

‘‘single function,’’ those cases were 

addressing devices that relied on a 

single pull of the trigger, as opposed to 

some other single motion to activate the 

trigger. The term ‘‘single function’’ is 

reasonably interpreted to also include 

other analogous methods of trigger 

activation. 

E. ATF Suggested Alternatives 

1. General Adequacy of ATF 

Alternatives 

Comments Received 

One commenter opposed to the rule 

suggested that the alternatives discussed 

in the NPRM were not in compliance 

with Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–4 guidance, and that 

ATF failed to consider available 

alternatives and the impact on 

innovation. In addition, the commenter 

stated that ATF failed to show a need 

for the rule and argued that ATF did not 

make a good-faith attempt to meet its 

statutory mandate to identify, analyze, 

and rule out feasible alternatives. One 

commenter suggested that the analysis 

of alternatives should include 

alternatives provided under OMB 

Circular A–4, which include tort 

liability, criminal statutes, and 

punishments for violating statutes. 

Department Response 

OMB Circular A–4 requires the 

consideration of ‘‘possible alternatives’’ 

to regulation.8 ATF considered possible 

alternatives that it could legally employ 

under the NFA, as many of the 

suggested alternatives from 

commenters—e.g., grandfathering and 

reimbursement policies—are not 

possible given the legal constraints of 

existing ATF authority. OMB Circular 

A–4 stipulates, ‘‘The number and choice 

of alternatives selected for detailed 

analysis is a matter of judgment. There 

must be some balance between 

thoroughness and the practical limits on 

[the agency’s] analytical capacity.’’ 9

Circular A–4 adds that ‘‘analyzing all 

possible combinations is not practical 

when there are many options (including 

possible interaction effects).’’ 10 In these 

cases, the agency is to use its judgment 

to choose reasonable alternatives for 

careful consideration. During 

formulation of the NPRM, ATF 

considered various alternatives, 

including examples provided under 

OMB Circular A–4, and deemed them 

inappropriate. ATF believes that bumpstock-type devices satisfy the definition 

of ‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA, so 

regulatory action is necessary to 

implement the NFA and GCA. 

2. First ATF Alternative—No Regulatory 

Action 

Comments Received 

Commenters opposed to the 

regulation implicitly agreed with the 

first alternative listed by ATF, which is 

for the Department not to take any 

action. They argued that attention 

should be devoted to improving the 

background check system, that ATF 

should concentrate on enforcing the 

existing gun laws, or that if there is to 

be change, that change should be made 

by Congress or the States. One 

commenter argued ATF failed to 

properly analyze this alternative. 

Department Response 

As explained above, Part IV.D.4, the 

Department has concluded that the NFA 

and GCA require regulation of bumpstock-type devices as machineguns, and 

that taking no regulatory action is 

therefore not a viable alternative to this 

rule. 

3. Second ATF Alternative—Shooting 

Ranges 

Comments Received 

Commenters who suggested that 

bump-stock-type devices be used in a 

controlled setting, or be available only 

at shooting ranges, were largely in 

support of the rule rather than viewing 

it as a complete alternative to taking no 

regulatory action. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on the potential use of bumpstock-type devices in a controlled 

setting, such as a shooting range. As 

stated above, the Department believes 

that such items satisfy the statutory 

definition of ‘‘machinegun,’’ and 

therefore it is promulgating this rule to 

clarify the definition. ATF has 

previously held that the on-premises 

rental of NFA firearms is permitted. 

However, whereas machineguns that are 

currently available for rental at shooting 

ranges are lawfully registered in the 

NFRTR if they may be lawfully 

possessed under 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(B), 

bump-stock-type devices cannot be 

registered because none were in 

existence when section 922(o) was 

enacted in 1986. 

4. Third ATF Alternative—Use Other 

Means 

Comments Received 

Many commenters opposed to the 

rulemaking pointed out that bump firing 

can be accomplished by using other 

everyday items such as belt loops or 

rubber bands. See Part IV.10.b. No 

commenter said that solely using rubber 

bands or other items would be a 

satisfactory alternative if the proposed 

rule went into effect. Rather, these 

commenters made the point that if 

bump firing is possible with or without 

bump-stock-type devices, then the 

Department would be obliged to also 

prohibit possession of rubber bands and 

belt loops under the NFA. 

Department Response 

The Department has detailed in the 

NPRM and this rule the distinction 

between bump firing with a bumpstock-type device and using belt loops 

or rubber bands. See Part IV.10.b. 

Although a shooter using a belt loop, 

string, or other manual method utilizes 

recoil energy to bump fire, the shooter 

is responsible for constraining the 

firearm, maintaining the correct finger 

pressure, and regulating the force 

necessary to fire continuously. This is 

clearly distinguishable from a bumpstock-type device, as ATF has explained 

that such a device functions ‘‘as a selfacting and self-regulating force that 

channels the firearm’s recoil energy in 

a continuous back-and-forth cycle that 

allows the shooter to attain continuous 

firing after a single pull of the trigger so 

long as the trigger finger remains 

stationary on the device’s extension 

ledge.’’ 83 FR at 13443. Based on the 

clear differences between bump-stocktype devices and manual means of 

bump firing, the Department disagrees 

with the commenters that manual 

means of bump firing are factually or 

technically equivalent to bump-stocktype devices. 

F. Other Alternatives 

1. Allow Registration or Grandfathering 

of Bump-Stock-Type Devices Under 

NFA 

Comments Received 

Several hundred commenters argued 

that ATF should announce an amnesty 

period, allowing time for current owners 

of bump-stock-type devices to register 

them as NFA firearms in the NFRTR. 

These commenters argued that pursuant 

to section 207(d) of the GCA, the 

Attorney General has power to establish 

amnesty periods for up to 90 days. 

Further, they argued there is precedent 

for an amnesty period, pointing to the 

seven-year amnesty/registration period 

that was allowed for the Striker-12/ 

Streetsweeper and USAS–12 shotguns. 

See ATF Rulings 94–1, 94–2. Doing so, 

they argued, would save the 

Government from having to compensate 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66536 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

current owners of bump-stock-type 

devices and also even generate money 

for the Government, as individuals 

would be required to pay a $200 tax on 

the devices. See 26 U.S.C. 5821. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that an 

amnesty period is possible in this 

scenario. While in 1968 Congress left 

open the possibility of future amnesty 

registration of firearms subject to the 

NFA, ATF has long held that it 

eliminated any possible amnesty for 

machineguns in 1986. Following 

passage of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), ATF 

advised the industry and the public that 

amnesty registration of machineguns 

was not legally permissible. For 

example, in 1996 and 1997, ATF 

advised an industry member that: 

18 U.S.C. 922(o) would preclude the 

registration of machineguns during an 

amnesty period. Section 922(o) prohibits 

possession of machineguns which were not 

lawfully possessed prior to its effective date 

of May 19, 1986 . . . . Since 922(o) [was 

enacted after the amnesty provision of the 

NFA], its provisions would prevail over any 

earlier enactment in conflict. This means that 

any future amnesty period could not permit 

the lawful possession and registration of 

machineguns prohibited by section 922(o). 

Letter for C. Michael Shyne from ATF’s 

National Firearms Act Branch Chief 

(March 10, 1997). Section 922(o) does 

not ban the private possession and 

transfer of all machineguns because it 

specifically excludes ‘‘any lawful 

transfer or lawful possession of a 

machinegun that was lawfully 

possessed before the date [section 

922(o)] takes effect.’’ 18 U.S.C. 

922(o)(2)(B). The intent of the statute 

was to limit transactions in post-1986 

machineguns. See United States v. 

Ferguson, 788 F. Supp. 580, 581 (D.D.C. 

1992) (‘‘Under section 922(o)(2)(B), 

certain machineguns, namely, those that 

were lawfully possessed before 

enactment of the statute in 1986, may be 

legally possessed and transferred even 

today.’’); see also United States v. 

O’Mara, 827 F. Supp. 1468, 1470 n.4 

(C.D. Cal. 1993) (citing Ferguson). 

Congress’s goal was to ban the transfer 

and possession of such weapons 

outright. United States v. Hunter, 843 F. 

Supp. 235, 247–48 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 

The legislative history supports this 

proposition. When asked whether an 

amnesty period could ‘‘be 

administratively declared by the 

Secretary of the Treasury by the 

enactment of this bill,’’ Senator 

Kennedy responded that ‘‘[t]here is 

nothing in the bill that gives such an 

authority, and there is clearly no valid 

law enforcement goal to be achieved by 

such open-ended amnesty.’’ See id. at 

248. 

Some commenters pointed to ATF 

Rulings 94–1 and 94–2 as precedent for 

an amnesty period; however, section 

922(o) applies only to machineguns, and 

there was no similar restriction on the 

destructive devices at issue in ATF 

Rulings 94–1 and 94–2. Therefore, these 

rulings cannot serve as precedent in the 

present case. 

2. Licensing and Background Checks 

Comments Received 

Numerous commenters suggested 

other methods for how bump-stock-type 

devices should be regulated, including 

methods involving background checks. 

Some commenters broadly suggested 

that these devices should be sold like 

firearms under the GCA, meaning that 

the purchaser would undergo a 

background check when acquiring one 

from a retailer. One commenter 

suggested a new ‘‘2.5 firearms class’’ 

that would cover ‘‘grey area’’ guns and 

accessories, like bump-stock-type 

devices. Possessors of items falling 

under the ‘‘2.5 firearms class’’ would 

undergo background checks and, as 

with State-issued concealed-carry 

permits, local law enforcement would 

be able to cancel privileges if necessary. 

Other commenters suggested that bumpstock-type devices should not be 

available to the public unless the 

possessor is licensed, passes a 

background check, or provides a valid 

reason for needing a bump-stock-type 

device. Another commenter suggested 

bump-stock-type devices should be 

regulated like ‘‘any other weapon’’ 

under the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(e), so 

that current owners could register them 

by paying a $5 fee, allowing a waiting 

period to elapse, and establishing a 

paper trail of ownership. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges these 

suggested alternatives but does not have 

the authority to add a new class of 

firearms to the statutory scheme or 

impose licensing requirements to 

acquire a firearm. Such changes would 

require legislation. Further, the 

definition of ‘‘any other weapon’’ in the 

NFA does not apply to bump-stock-type 

devices. Because bump-stock-type 

devices are properly classified as 

‘‘machineguns’’ under the NFA and 

GCA, the Department believes that ATF 

must regulate them as such, and that the 

recommended alternatives are not 

possible unless Congress amends the 

NFA and GCA. 

3. Remuneration 

Comments Received 

Over 1,000 commenters opposed to 

the rule argued that compensation 

should be provided to owners of bumpstock-type devices. Several supporters 

of the rule also suggested there should 

be a buy-back program in order to 

reduce the number of bump-stock-type 

devices. One commenter more 

specifically stated that manufacturers or 

retailers should be required to buy back 

all such devices and make full refunds 

to all purchasers. Another supporter 

suggested a one-time tax credit to 

owners who surrender their bumpstock-type devices or provide proof of 

destruction. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on compensation for current 

owners of bump-stock-type devices. 

While ATF has the authority to 

implement the NFA and GCA, the 

Department does not have the necessary 

Federal appropriations to implement a 

buy-back program or offer monetary 

compensation. To implement a buyback program or provide a tax credit 

would require congressional action. 

4. Medical Exemption 

Comments Received 

Some commenters suggested that 

Department amend the proposed rule so 

it would provide an exemption for 

‘‘medical necessity,’’ thereby allowing 

certain individuals, such as those with 

nerve damage or one functional arm, to 

possess bump-stock-type devices. 

Similarly, commenters suggested bumpstock-type devices should only be 

available for people who are physically 

unable to pull a trigger for hunting or 

target practice. 

Department Response 

The Department does not have 

authority to create a medical exemption 

for the possession of machineguns. 

Pursuant to the NFA and GCA, for 

private possession of machineguns to be 

lawful, they must have been lawfully 

possessed before the effective date of 18 

U.S.C. 922(o). 

5. Allow Removal of Trigger Ledge 

Comments Received 

One commenter suggested that ‘‘ATF 

could find that bump-stock-type devices 

with the ledge/rest removed are not 

affected by any additional regulation.’’ 

The commenter argued that this would 

make the proposed rule ‘‘logically 

consistent with the notion that operators 

may ‘bump fire’ with or without a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66537 

bump-stock-type device, as long as they 

do not utilize a device allowing a fixed 

trigger finger.’’ 

Department Response 

The Department does not believe that 

removing the trigger ledge is sufficient 

to affect a bump-stock-type device’s 

classification as a machinegun. While 

the trigger ledge makes it easier to 

utilize the device, removing the ledge 

does nothing to prevent the directing of 

the ‘‘recoil energy of the discharged 

rounds into the space created by the 

sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) 

in constrained linear rearward and 

forward paths.’’ 83 FR at 13443. 

Therefore, even without the trigger 

ledge, the bump-stock-type device will 

operate as designed if the shooter 

simply holds his or her finger in place. 

As such the bump-stock-type device 

remains a ‘‘machinegun’’ under the NFA 

and GCA. 

6. Miscellaneous Alternatives To 

Regulate Bump-Stock-Type Devices 

Comments Received 

Other miscellaneous comments 

included suggesting a ban only on 

future production and commercial sale 

of such items; enacting a quota on the 

number of devices that can be produced 

or possessed; enacting a Pigouvian tax, 

which is a tax imposed on a good that 

is calculated to reduce market quantity 

(and increase market price) in order to 

achieve the socially optimal level of the 

good; deferring action until Congress 

takes action; leaving the matter for State 

legislative action; improving security at 

mass-attended events; and improving 

law enforcement capabilities. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on alternative suggestions for 

the regulation of bump-stock-type 

devices, but it does not have authority 

to implement many of the suggested 

alternatives. The Department does not 

have the authority to restrict only the 

future manufacture or sale of bumpstock-type devices, nor does it have the 

authority to remove the general 

prohibition on the transfer and 

possession of machineguns that were 

not lawfully possessed on the effective 

date of 18 U.S.C. 922(o). In addition, the 

Department lacks the authority to enact 

an excise tax on bump-stock-type 

devices. 

As mentioned above, the Department 

does not agree with commenters that 

any change needs to be enacted by 

Congress or should be left to State 

legislatures. Congress passed both the 

NFA and GCA, delegating enforcement 

authority to the Attorney General. 

Accordingly, the Attorney General has 

the authority to promulgate regulations 

necessary to enforce the provisions of 

the NFA and GCA, and the Department 

determined that notice-and-comment 

rulemaking was the appropriate avenue 

to clarify the definition of 

‘‘machinegun.’’ In the interest of public 

safety and in light of the statutory 

definition of ‘‘machinegun,’’ the 

Department has determined that Federal 

regulation of bump-stock-type devices is 

necessary. However, this action does not 

prevent Congress from taking action on 

bump-stock-type devices in the future. 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on improving security at 

mass-attended events and agrees that it 

is important to improve law 

enforcement capabilities. The 

Department actively works with State 

and local law enforcement agencies to 

provide security at mass-attended 

events, as well as training and 

equipment for their departments. 

G. Proposed Rule’s Statutory and 

Executive Order Review 

Comments Received 

A few commenters suggested that 

ATF failed to comply with Executive 

Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771, 

including failing to identify and repeal 

two regulations for every new regulation 

issued. Commenters argued that ATF 

did not quantify the benefits of the rule, 

and it did not explain why those 

benefits were unquantifiable as required 

by OMB Circular A–4. Commenters 

stated that ATF did not identify the 

need for the proposed rule, in that ATF 

cited no evidence to support that the 

Las Vegas shooter used a bump-stocktype device. One commenter asked that 

ATF demonstrate how the cost-benefit 

analysis shows that the proposed rule is 

in the interests of gun owners, business 

owners, and the Federal Government. 

The commenter further suggested that 

ATF did not provide any citations or 

peer-reviewed research as evidence of 

the need for Federal regulatory action. 

Lastly, some commenters questioned 

how ATF determined the negative 

externalities that were presented in the 

NPRM. 

Department Response 

Executive Order 12866 and OMB 

Circular A–4 acknowledge that 

regulatory agencies should comply with 

them wherever possible or feasible. The 

Department interprets and adheres to 

the existing Executive Orders and OMB 

Circular A–4 to the extent that it is 

possible, using the best available 

information, and to the extent 

quantified information was available. 

Alternatively, wherever quantifiable 

means were not available, the 

Department considered qualitative 

costs, benefits, concerns, and 

justifications. 

This rule is a significant regulatory 

action that clarifies the statutory 

definition of machinegun. By clarifying 

that bump-stock-type devices are 

machineguns subject to the restrictions 

of the NFA and GCA, the rule in effect 

removes those devices from the civilian 

marketplace. This final rule is an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory 

action. See OMB, Guidance 

Implementing Executive Order 13771, 

Titled ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (Apr. 5, 

2017). 

As for the need for Federal regulation, 

agencies are allowed to consider public 

safety as a compelling need for a Federal 

rulemaking. Executive Order 12866 

expressly recognizes as appropriate 

exercises of agency rulemaking 

authority that ‘‘are made necessary by 

compelling public need, such as 

material failures of private markets to 

protect or improve the health and safety 

of the public, the environment, or the 

well-being of the American people.’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As explained 

in the NPRM, the purpose of this rule 

is to amend ATF regulations to clarify 

that bump-stock-type devices are 

‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the NFA 

and GCA, with a desired outcome of 

increasing public safety. In accordance 

with OMB Circular A–4, the Department 

has provided information wherever 

possible regarding the costs, benefits, 

and justification of this rule. 

As further requested by one 

commenter, this rule not only considers 

the implications of this rule on gun 

owners in the United States, business 

owners, and the Federal Government, 

but also considers the risk of criminal 

use of bump-stock-type devices and the 

general safety of the public to justify the 

issuance of this final rule. 

H. Affected Population 

Comments Received 

There were a number of commenters 

who stated this rule will affect between 

200,000 and 500,000 owners. Some 

commenters suggested that the 

estimated number of bump-stock-type 

devices should be higher, potentially 

over a million, than the estimated 

amount stated in the NPRM. Some 

commenters indicated that this would 

incorporate homemade devices, 3Dprinted devices, or other devices made 

by personal means. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66538 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

11See Jared Walczak & Scott Drenkard, State and 

Local Tax Rates in 2017, Tax Found. (Jan. 31, 2017), 

https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-taxrates-in-2017/. 

Department Response 

In the NPRM, ATF did not estimate 

the number of owners. 83 FR at 13449. 

The 280,000–520,000 range in the 

Executive Order 12866 section of the 

NPRM is the estimated number of 

bump-stock-type devices in circulation, 

not the number of owners. While the 

Department does not know the total 

number of bump-stock-type devices 

currently extant, nor the number of 

owners, the Department’s high estimate 

of 520,000 is still the primary estimate 

only for devices sold on the market. 

While it may be possible to make 

homemade devices, the Department 

cannot calculate the number of such 

devices or the likelihood of these 

devices circulating among the public. 

The Department is using the best 

available information, and there is no 

known information that would allow 

ATF to estimate such a number, much 

less achieve the level of accuracy that 

the public is requesting. Therefore, the 

estimates provided continue to be based 

upon the best available information. 

I. Costs and Benefits 

1. Costs to Purchasers 

Comments Received 

One commenter stated that some 

models of bump-stock-type devices 

never sold for less than $425 plus taxes. 

Another commenter stated that the 

Department’s regulatory analysis did not 

account for the individual cost in 

purchasing bump-stock-type devices, 

only manufacturers’ and retailers’ 

expenses. Other commenters suggested 

that the analysis did not account for 

taxes. One commenter suggested that 

the costs should incorporate the cost of 

purchasing a pre-1986 machinegun. One 

commenter suggested that many owners 

have bump-stock-type devices as the 

only stocks that they own and that 

purchasing a standard stock will need to 

be incorporated into the analysis. 

Some commenters stated that the cost 

analysis does not include compensation 

for bump-stock-type devices and that 

the cost could be more than $50 trillion. 

Other commenters indicated that the 

rule did not account for lost lives, 

treatment costs, decreased tourism, and 

costs of criminal investigations. Other 

commenters argued that ATF failed to 

consider other costs, such as loss of 

faith in ATF by the regulated industry 

and resentment for not being 

reimbursed for bump-stock-type 

devices. 

Department Response 

The Department concurs that certain 

models sold at the $425.95 rate (a rate 

also included in ATF’s range of costs 

published in the NPRM), representing 

the high end of the range of rates. 83 FR 

at 13451. However, bump-stock-type 

devices also sold for as low as $100. Id. 

In order to account for the full range of 

prices, the Department used the average 

of the full range of prices; therefore, the 

average price of $301 was used in the 

NPRM to account for the full range of 

market prices for these bump-stock-type 

devices. Id. As for the payment of taxes, 

the Department concurs that an 

unknown number of bump-stock-typedevices were sold, and individuals paid 

local taxes on them at time of purchase. 

For the purposes of this final rule, the 

Department maintains the average price 

used in the NPRM but incorporates the 

average cost of combined State and local 

taxes. For the purposes of this final rule, 

the Department estimates that the 

national average of taxes is 6.47% and 

attributed this tax rate to the price of all 

bump-stock-type devices that were sold 

on the market.11

The Department disagrees that the 

regulatory analysis did not account for 

the individual cost in purchasing bumpstock-type devices. The market price of 

bump-stock-type devices sold to the 

public represents the public price of 

these devices, which also accounts for 

the manufacturer and retail prices and 

does not double-count costs. While it 

may be possible for the public to 

purchase a pre-1986 machinegun, these 

amounts are not used to purchase 

bump-stock-type devices, so the market 

prices for these pre-1986 machineguns 

are not considered for purposes of this 

rule. 

The Department reached out to the 

commenter who discussed the 

population of gun owners who will 

need to replace their bump-stock-type 

devices with standard stocks. The 

commenter was unable to provide a 

source establishing the existence of such 

gun owners and only speculated that 

this was a possibility. Having 

determined that this was speculation, 

the Department declined to incorporate 

this information into the analysis. 

The Department does not propose 

compensation for bump-stock-type 

devices, so these costs were not 

included in the rule. See Part IV.D.1.b 

for a discussion of the Fifth 

Amendment’s Takings Clause. Further, 

costs associated with victims, criminal 

investigations, loss of tourism, loss of 

faith in ATF by the regulated industry, 

and resentment for not being 

reimbursed for bump-stock-type devices 

are all indirect or unquantifiable costs of 

the rule and are not considered in the 

cost-benefit analysis. 

2. Costs to Manufacturers, Employees, 

and Communities 

Comments Received 

Commenters suggested that this rule 

will cost manufacturers, employees, and 

families of manufacturers their 

livelihood. In particular, one commenter 

suggested that three additional 

manufacturers would have entered or 

re-entered the market after the lapse of 

the patent for the main manufacturer of 

bump-stock-type devices. Additionally, 

public comments suggested that the 

Department overlooked the capital 

expenses required to start a company. 

Department Response 

The Department has considered the 

effect that this rule will have on these 

manufacturers, employees, and families 

and acknowledges that they will no 

longer be able to manufacture bumpstock-type devices. The Department 

acknowledges that there will be a 

potential loss of wages from employees 

losing jobs from loss of manufacturing; 

however, the extent to which they are 

unable to find replacement jobs is 

speculative. The Department considered 

the capital expenses for manufacturers, 

including patents and equipment to 

start production. However, in light of 

the Las Vegas shooting and the 

estimated time it would have taken for 

the patents to expire, the Department 

has determined that there could be 

potential crowding of additional 

manufacturers and saturation of the 

market for bump-stock-type devices. 

Therefore, the viability of these 

businesses is speculative and the capital 

expenses that they incurred are a sunk 

cost for those who put in the expense. 

While the Department does not include 

capital expenses for manufacturing in 

the economic analysis, the Department 

had already considered the overall 

potential for return on investment for 

any manufacturers who would have 

remained in the market from the 

existing estimate of foregone 

production. Accounting for capital 

expenses would be double counting of 

expenditures. Therefore, the economic 

analysis for this portion remains the 

same. 

3. Costs of Litigation 

Comments Received 

Commenters suggested that the 

Department did not account for the cost 

of litigation regarding the rule. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66539 

12U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of 

Advocacy, A Guide for Government Agencies: How 

to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 1 

(Aug. 2017), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ 

advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf. 

13 Id. 

14 Id. 

Department Response 

Litigation costs are not a direct cost of 

the rule because such costs do not result 

from compliance with the rule. 

Additionally, any estimate of litigation 

expenses would be highly speculative 

and would not inform the Department’s 

decision regarding the implementation 

of this final rule. However, the 

Department acknowledges that to the 

extent parties choose to enter into 

litigation regarding this final rule, there 

are indirect costs associated with that 

litigation. 

4. Government Costs 

Comments Received 

Commenters suggested that this rule 

would cost the Government 

approximately $297 million, including 

the disposal cost of the bump-stock-type 

devices. Other commenters indicated 

that confiscation costs were not 

included in the cost of the rule. One 

commenter provided estimates on the 

cost to house bump-stock-type device 

owners in prison as felons, particularly 

if a large number of owners opt not to 

destroy such devices. Lastly, one 

commenter suggested that ATF consider 

foregone sales taxes associated with 

ammunition used to fire bump-stocktype devices. 

Department Response 

In the NPRM, the Department 

estimated that the total cost of the rule 

for the general public (e.g., owners and 

manufacturers of bump-stock-type 

devices) would be about $326.2 million 

over a 10-year period, not that the rule 

would cost the Federal Government that 

amount. 83 FR at 13454. The 

Department’s estimate that Government 

costs are de minimis still stands for this 

final rule because the costs identified by 

these commenters are not Government 

expenditures. Further, costs associated 

with administering the option of current 

possessors of bump-stock-type devices 

abandoning their devices at their local 

ATF offices will be de minimis. The 

Department also disagrees that this rule 

will turn owners of bump-stock-type 

devices into felons. This final rule 

provides an effective date that allows 

ample time for current owners to 

destroy or abandon such devices. To the 

extent that owners timely destroy or 

abandon these bump-stock-type devices, 

they will not be in violation of the law 

or incarcerated as a result. However, if 

prohibited bump-stock-type devices are 

possessed after the effective date of the 

final rule, the person in possession of 

the bump-stock-type device will be in 

violation of Federal law. 

While the usage of bump-stock-type 

devices may boost ammunition sales, 

the Department did not consider the 

loss of tax revenue collected from 

additional ammunition sales because 

they are speculative and are not a direct 

cost of the rule. Additionally, any 

estimate of tax revenue generated would 

not inform the Department’s decision 

regarding the implementation of this 

final rule. 

5. Benefits 

Comments Received 

Commenters stated that there are no 

quantifiable benefits to justify the costs 

of this rule, nor will it prevent criminal 

use of firearms. One commenter also 

stated that ATF did not explain why the 

benefits were unquantifiable as required 

by OMB Circular A–4. Some 

commenters suggested that ATF is 

required ‘‘by law’’ to quantify and 

monetize benefits. Commenters stated 

that the benefits do not outweigh the 

costs and ATF failed to conduct any 

analysis of the benefits of the rule and 

did not quantify the benefits. Further, 

commenters argued that ATF did not 

substantiate its assertion that bumpstock-type devices will be used more 

frequently in future crimes if this rule 

is not promulgated. 

One commenter argued that the 

Department needed to separate the 

effects of using a bump-stock-type 

device from other factors that might 

have incremental effects on criminal 

activity, such as crowd density and 

angle of fire. The commenter stated that 

benefits must be reduced accordingly 

and must take into account a reduction 

in violence instead of elimination of the 

threat of violence from bump-stock-type 

devices. Many commenters argued that 

ATF cannot rely on the Las Vegas 

shooting as the measure of benefits for 

this rule. 

Commenters discussed means of 

monetizing shooting incidents or 

comparing the death rates related to 

other items like motor vehicles, opiates, 

knives, and rocks. Other commenters in 

support of the rule suggested that ATF 

incorporate the financial and societal 

benefits of this rule. 

Department Response 

The Department declines to quantify 

benefits because OMB Circular A–4 

requires quantifying and monetizing 

benefits only ‘‘if possible.’’ OMB 

Circular A–4 at 45. One commenter 

provided descriptions on how to 

determine quantitative benefits of this 

rule and specifics on using a break-even 

analysis; however, due to limitations on 

data, the Department has considered the 

qualitative benefits for this rulemaking. 

The Department did not account for 

the cost of deaths and injuries unrelated 

to bump-stock-type devices, as these are 

unrelated to this rule. This rule does not 

prohibit the use of firearms that could 

be used in shootings, or other items or 

devices. Furthermore, it is unclear how 

risk associated with other devices such 

as motor vehicles should influence 

ATF’s decision-making. ATF has 

provided a cost-benefit analysis in both 

the NPRM and this final rule that fulfills 

the requirements of Executive Order 

12866, OMB Circular A–4, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

J. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Comments Received 

Some commenters suggested that the 

RFA requires examination of the future 

impact of the rule on innovation and of 

making a lawful product into an 

unlawful one. 

Department Response 

The Department disagrees that the 

RFA requires an examination of those 

specific factors. The RFA ‘‘requires 

agencies to consider the impact of their 

regulatory proposals on small entities, 

analyze effective alternatives that 

minimize small entity impacts, and 

make their analyses available for public 

comment.’’ 12 The RFA ‘‘does not seek 

preferential treatment for small entities, 

nor does it require agencies to adopt 

regulations that impose the least burden 

on them, or mandate exemptions for 

them. Rather, it requires agencies to 

examine public policy issues using an 

analytical process that identifies barriers 

to small business competitiveness and 

seeks a level playing field for small 

entities, not an unfair advantage.’’ 13

The Department found that this rule 

significantly impacts small businesses 

related to bump-stock-type devices. The 

Department interprets the RFA to mean 

that small businesses should not be 

prevented from using innovations to 

compete with other businesses, and to 

account for small businesses when 

determining alternative approaches with 

respect to small businesses in the 

field.14 At this time, there are only small 

businesses that manufacture bumpstock-type devices; therefore, no 

regulatory alternative was considered to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66540 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

alleviate the regulatory burden on small 

businesses with respect to competition 

with businesses that are not small. 

K. Miscellaneous Comments 

Commenters both in support of and in 

opposition to the proposed rule raised 

additional miscellaneous issues. These 

are discussed below. 

1. Improve Background Checks 

Comments Received 

Separate from the suggested 

alternative, discussed above, that bumpstock-type devices be sold like firearms, 

many commenters voiced their general 

support for various enhancements to the 

existing Federal background check 

requirement. Commenters said the ‘‘gun 

show loophole’’ should be closed, and 

many called for universal background 

checks. At least one commenter 

suggested there should be psychiatric 

evaluations for firearms purchasers. 

Commenters making these points were 

largely supporters of the proposed rule, 

but at least a few commenters opposed 

to the rule also supported background 

checks. One opposed commenter said 

better communication between the 

relevant government agencies and 

tighter background checks were needed. 

A few opposed commenters suggested it 

would be more effective to have a more 

in-depth background check along with a 

minimum age of 21 or 25 and a five-day 

waiting period because they observed 

that young, alienated people have 

frequently been the perpetrators of mass 

shootings. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges 

comments on enhanced or expanded 

background checks, an increase in 

minimum age requirements, and waiting 

periods. The Department is aware of the 

importance of having accurate and 

complete information available to the 

NICS, which is managed by the FBI; 

further, the Department works with 

Federal and State agencies to ensure 

that necessary information is submitted 

to the system. The Department does not, 

however, have the authority to increase 

the minimum-age requirement or enact 

a mandatory waiting period to purchase 

a firearm. 

2. Increase Criminal Penalties 

Comments Received 

Commenters on both sides of the issue 

suggested that there be more stringent 

criminal penalties for firearms offenses. 

Some commenters in support of the rule 

said there should be severe penalties for 

possessing a bump-stock-type device, or 

for manufacturing one through digital 

printing, or simply for anyone who 

manufactures or distributes bump-stocktype devices. Another commenter 

supporting the rule said that bumpstock-type devices should be prohibited 

from all public spaces where there is the 

potential for mass murder, but did not 

object to persons who wanted to use 

bump-stock-type devices on their own 

property or on hunting or shooting 

grounds. Some commenters opined that 

generally there should be more severe 

penalties for anyone using guns illegally 

or irresponsibly. A few commenters 

opposed to the rule suggested that in 

lieu of a rule prohibiting possession, a 

more effective deterrent would be severe 

penalties for the manufacture and sale 

of bump-stock-type devices, and that 

there should instead be swift and severe 

punishment, such as the death penalty 

for persons who commit or attempt to 

commit a mass shooting, or, more 

generally, that the law should be written 

to include mandated, nondiscretionary 

sentences. 

Department Response 

The Department does not have the 

authority to increase criminal penalties. 

Only Congress can increase, amend, or 

add new criminal penalties for Federal 

crimes. 

3. Repeal the NFA and Hughes 

Amendment, and Remove Silencers 

Comments Received 

Numerous commenters opposed to 

the regulation viewed the proposed rule 

as an infringement on their rights. As 

part of their opposition to the proposed 

rule, some commented that the NFA 

itself is inherently unconstitutional and 

declared that it should be repealed. 

Commenters similarly questioned the 

constitutionality of the Hughes 

Amendment (18 U.S.C. 922(o)), which 

was enacted as a part of the Firearms 

Owners’ Protection Act in 1986 and 

prohibits possession by individuals of 

any post-1986 machinegun. These 

commenters declared it should be 

repealed. A majority of these 

commenters simply objected to any 

further firearms restrictions and insisted 

these laws be repealed in order to 

restore freedoms they believe to have 

been steadily eroded by the 

Government. Some commenters noted 

that bump-stock-type devices evolved as 

a workaround to the NFA and Hughes 

Amendment restrictions so that shooters 

could have an affordable alternative to 

shoot in a manner that is close to a 

machinegun. Some opined that that a 

rule prohibiting bump-stock-type 

devices would be acceptable so long as 

these other restrictions are lifted to give 

individuals affordable access to 

machineguns. A few commenters also 

added that silencers should be removed 

from the NFA’s coverage or be made 

available like any other firearm device, 

with at least one commenter stating that 

the Hearing Protection Act or 

Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational 

Enhancement (SHARE) Act should be 

passed. 

Department Response 

The Department does not have the 

authority to repeal or amend provisions 

of the NFA, such as by removing 

silencers from the NFA. The NFA is a 

statute, which only Congress may repeal 

or alter. ATF does not have the 

authority to remove the general 

prohibition on the transfer and 

possession of machineguns that were 

not lawfully possessed before the date 

18 U.S.C. 922(o) became effective, nor 

does it have the authority to permit 

nongovernmental entities to possess 

machineguns or other NFA firearms that 

are not lawfully registered in the 

NFRTR. Only Congress can alter these 

provisions. However, as stated, ATF 

does have the authority to implement 

the existing statute and has utilized the 

rulemaking process to do so. 

4. Focus on Mental Health and Other 

Gun Control Measures 

Comments Received 

Supporters argued that in addition to 

finalizing the rule, more attention needs 

to be paid to improving mental health 

care. Generally, these commenters 

suggested there should be more 

spending on the mental health system 

so as to increase access. 

Numerous commenters in support of 

the rule also listed several other 

proposals pertaining to gun safety or 

gun control measures that should be 

implemented. Almost 5,000 commenters 

expressed that ‘‘other conversion 

devices’’ along with bump-stock-type 

devices should be banned. And more 

than 1,500 commenters also called for a 

ban on ‘‘assault weapons’’ or firearms 

altogether, while several others 

specifically stated that there should be 

restrictions on high-capacity magazines. 

Some commenters provided many other 

suggestions, including a higher age limit 

to acquire a firearm, written tests for 

firearm access, mandatory gun safety 

classes, proper storage inspections, a 

nationwide gun registry, licensure and 

gun ownership insurance requirements, 

ammunition limits, and protocols for 

removing firearms from domestic 

abusers and the mentally ill through 

protective orders. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66541 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges the 

importance of improving mental health 

care. However, mental health treatment 

does not fall under the Department’s 

authority. 

Although this rulemaking specifically 

addresses bump-stock-type devices, any 

item that meets the definition of a 

‘‘machinegun’’ will be regulated as such 

and cannot be possessed unless legally 

registered. But only Congress can add 

additional requirements that must be 

met in order to purchase a firearm. 

The Department does not have the 

authority to remove firearms from 

persons who are not prohibited from 

receiving or possessing them under 

Federal law. Only Congress can amend 

or add new categories of prohibited 

persons. 

L. Comments on the Rulemaking Process 

1. Availability of Supporting 

Documentation 

Comments Received 

A handful of commenters argued that 

the procedures of the APA were not 

properly followed, in part because ATF 

did not include any supporting 

documentation on how it formulated its 

decision to regulate bump-stock-type 

devices. In particular, commenters 

stated that although they submitted 

Freedom of Information Act requests, 

ATF did not make available its own 

prior letter determinations that 

classified various bump-stock-type 

devices as firearm parts not subject to 

the NFA or GCA, nor did ATF make 

available any evidence suggesting that 

there have been other instances of 

criminal use of a bump-stock-type 

device. This kind of documentation, 

they argued, would provide the basis 

upon which the agency justified its 

proposed rule and therefore should be 

made public in order to allow for 

meaningful comment under the APA. 

Department Response 

Contrary to the commenters’ 

arguments, the Department believes that 

it provided all of the background 

information necessary to allow 

meaningful public participation. The 

APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), provides that 

‘‘[g]eneral notice of proposed rule 

making shall be published in the 

Federal Register,’’ and that this notice 

shall include, inter alia, ‘‘either the 

terms or substance of the proposed rule 

or a description of the subjects and 

issues involved.’’ Federal courts have 

recognized that they must determine 

whether regulations are consistent with 

statutes, and ‘‘whether the process used 

in arriving at those regulations afforded 

those affected . . . their procedural due. 

More specifically, in the informal 

rulemaking context . . . , this inquiry 

asks whether the agency gave ‘interested 

persons an opportunity to participate in 

the rule making through submission of 

written (or other) data’ and whether it 

‘incorporate(d) in the rule adopted a 

concise general statement of their basis 

and purpose.’ ’’ Weyerhaeuser Co. v. 

Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553). A ‘‘notice 

of proposed rulemaking must provide 

sufficient factual detail and rationale for 

the rule to permit interested parties to 

comment meaningfully.’’ Honeywell 

Int’l, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 445 

(D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

The Department agrees with 

commenters that interested parties will 

not be able to make meaningful 

comments upon an agency’s proposed 

regulation if the notice ‘‘fails to provide 

an accurate picture’’ of the agency’s 

reasoning. Conn. Light & Power Co. v. 

NRC, 673 F.2d 525, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 

Commenters fail, however, to recognize 

that the text of the NPRM set out the 

facts necessary to ‘‘provide an accurate 

picture’’ of the Department’s reasoning. 

In the NPRM, the Department 

articulated the reasons for its proposed 

change in the classification of bumpstock-type devices, provided detailed 

descriptions and explanations of its 

prior classifications, and offered 

thorough explanations of its past and 

current analysis. Accordingly, the 

Department believes that it provided 

notice to the public, in sufficient factual 

detail, to permit interested parties to 

comment meaningfully on the proposed 

rule. 

2. Previous ‘‘Lack of Candor’’ 

Comments Received 

One commenter also included an 

extensive description of ATF’s ‘‘prior 

lack of candor,’’ including instances 

where ATF purportedly (1) committed 

‘‘institutional perjury’’ before the courts 

in the context of criminal prosecutions 

and supporting probable-cause 

showings for search warrants; (2) 

committed deception and delayed 

responding with respect to 

congressional inquiries regarding 

NFRTR inaccuracies as well the ‘‘Fast 

and Furious’’ investigation; and (3) 

misled the public about the accuracy of 

the NFRTR. According to the 

commenter, these episodes highlight a 

pattern of procedural irregularities that 

should draw further scrutiny of this 

rulemaking. 

Department Response 

These comments are beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking, but the Department 

notes that ATF has committed available 

resources to develop the NPRM and 

respond to comments as part of the 

rulemaking process. In developing this 

rulemaking and responding to 

comments, ATF has followed all 

established procedures and complied 

with all relevant policies and 

requirements. 

3. 90-Day Public Comment Period 

Comments Received 

One commenter asserted that the 

agency failed to provide the statutorily 

mandated 90-day public comment 

period. The commenter relied on an 

online article that ‘‘detail[ed] the trials 

and tribulations of trying to find the 

appropriate docket,’’ given that some 

commenters indicated that they 

encountered a ‘‘Comment Period 

Closed’’ notification on the 

FederalRegister.gov website when the 

NPRM was published on March 29, 

2018. The author of the online article 

said that he submitted an inquiry to 

ATF asking why the comment period 

appeared closed when it should have 

been open through June 27, 2018, and 

why the website, at various times, 

depicted different numbers for the 

amount of comments ATF received. The 

author’s description of events 

concluded by noting that he received a 

response from ATF with a specified 

weblink to Regulations.gov where he 

could submit a comment but that none 

of his comments submitted were visible 

on the website. Relying primarily on 

this online account, the commenter 

asserts that ATF did not disclose this 

weblink to the public and that 

numerous people believed that the 

comment period was closed from the 

very beginning of the comment period 

and were therefore precluded from 

submitting comments. The commenter 

therefore believes that the comment 

period should be extended because ATF 

did not permit the statutorily mandated 

90-day comment period. 

Department Response 

The Department acknowledges that 

upon publication of the NPRM on 

March 29, 2018, there was some 

confusion within the first 24 to 48 hours 

about submitting comments through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(www.Regulations.gov), which is 

managed and maintained by a thirdparty host. ATF was in touch with the 

managers of the Federal eRulemaking 

portal, and relayed an explanation of 

these technical issues to the author of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66542 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the online article in two subsequent 

emails dated April 2 and April 3, 2018. 

However, there is no evidence that the 

proposed rule was not available for 

public comment for the 90-day 

comment period. On the contrary, ATF 

received numerous comments from the 

very beginning of the comment period. 

ATF explained to the author of the 

article that on March 29, 2018, when the 

comment period opened for the NPRM, 

the link for submitting comments to the 

NPRM had been inadvertently 

connected to the Regulations.gov Docket 

ID number 2018–0001–0001, which had 

been used by the Regulations.gov 

website for the ANPRM comment 

period, December 26, 2017, through 

January 25, 2018. On March 29, 2018, 

the same day the proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register, 

individuals were able to and did submit 

comments for the NPRM even though it 

was linked to the Docket ID used for the 

ANPRM. Realizing that the link for the 

NPRM should not have been listed 

under the ANPRM Docket ID, a new 

Docket ID number (2018–0002–0001) 

was created for the NPRM. These Docket 

ID numbers are created by the thirdparty managers of Regulations.gov for 

purposes of the website. ATF uses its 

own docket number, 2017R–22, as seen 

in the text of the ANPRM and NPRM. 

Once the third-party managers of 

Regulations.gov created a new Docket ID 

number for the NPRM with a ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ feature, they eliminated the 

ability to submit NPRM comments 

under the old ANPRM Docket ID. The 

Department acknowledges that there 

was some confusion because there was 

a brief period on March 29, 2018, during 

which the ANPRM link (2018–0001– 

0001) was prominently situated on the 

homepage of the Regulations.gov 

website even though that link was no 

longer able to accept comments for the 

NPRM. Despite the brief prominence of 

the old ANPRM Docket ID on the 

Regulations.gov website, the public had 

the ability to submit comments through 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal for the 

NPRM at all times, as a simple search 

for ‘‘bump stock’’ in the main search bar 

on Regulations.gov during this time 

would have displayed the link for the 

new NPRM Docket ID, which was active 

and accepting comments. Moreover, 

some individuals confused about how to 

comment on Regulations.gov called 

ATF’s Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

which was able to assist them. 

ATF also responded to the author’s 

inquiry regarding the discrepancy in the 

numbers showing the amount of 

comments received. Over the weekend 

of March 31, 2018, the third-party 

managers of Regulations.gov transferred 

all comments submitted for the NPRM 

through the ANPRM Docket ID to the 

new NPRM Docket ID. ATF was 

informed that the number of comments 

displayed on Regulations.gov updated 

only once a day and therefore would 

harmonize over the next few days as 

ongoing system maintenance occurred. 

Ultimately, the website depicting the 

amount of comments received reflects 

all comments received since March 29, 

2018, the beginning of the comment 

period. 

To answer the author’s inquiry as to 

why his comments submitted were not 

visible on Regulations.gov, ATF 

reminded the online author that Part 

VII.C of the NPRM, which described the 

three methods for submitting public 

comments, informed the public that 

comments submitted through 

Regulations.gov ‘‘will be posted within 

a few days of being submitted. However, 

if large volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, . . . 

comment[s] may not be viewable for up 

to several weeks.’’ Since the beginning 

of the comment period, ATF received a 

high volume of comments and, as 

forewarned, there was a delay between 

the time comments were submitted and 

when they became viewable on the 

website, assuming the comment met the 

posting guidelines stated in Part VII.A of 

the NPRM. By April 3, 2018, two of the 

online author’s comments were visible 

on Regulations.gov, and the agency 

provided him with direct weblinks to 

his comments. 

Accordingly, the Department 

disagrees that the agency failed to 

provide the statutorily mandated 90-day 

public comment period. Moreover, the 

Department notes that the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal is one of the three 

methods available for the public to 

submit comments during the 90-day 

comment period. Therefore, the public 

also had the ability to submit comments 

via mail or facsimile during the entire 

90-day period. 

The Department believes the 

numerous examples provided by the 

commenter of cases in which Federal 

agencies extended comment periods are 

inapplicable to this rulemaking. The 

specific scenarios the commenter listed 

were apparently all the result of the 

lapse in government funding that 

occurred in October 2013. At that time, 

agencies were largely unstaffed, and 

insufficient personnel were available to 

process the comments. This rulemaking 

has not involved similar difficulties. 

4. Request for Public Hearing 

Comments Received 

A few commenters requested a 

hearing pursuant to the NPRM because 

they want the opportunity to be heard 

before ATF prescribes any rule. One 

commenter stated that 18 U.S.C. 926(b) 

requires ATF to hold a public hearing 

when such is requested because the 

statute provides that the Attorney 

General ‘‘shall afford interested parties 

opportunity for hearing, before 

prescribing . . . rules and regulations 

[under 18 U.S.C. ch. 44].’’ 

Department Response 

The Department is not persuaded that 

a public hearing is necessary or 

appropriate in connection with this 

rulemaking. The Department believes 

that a comprehensive public record has 

already been established through the 

comment process, which generated over 

186,000 comments, some of which 

included substantial discussions of the 

rulemaking. The Department does not 

believe that a public hearing would 

meaningfully add data or information 

germane to the examination of the 

merits of the proposal or would provide 

substantive factual information that 

would assist the Department in 

improving the rule in material ways. 

Furthermore, the Department believes 

that it has made changes to this rule and 

included clarifications in the preamble 

that address the important issues raised 

by parties who requested a hearing. In 

light of all the circumstances, a public 

hearing is unnecessary. 

The Supreme Court has held that it is 

not necessary for an agency to hold a 

public hearing on a rulemaking simply 

because it receives a request for one. In 

both United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum 

Steel Corp., 406 U.S. 742 (1972), and 

United States v. Florida East Coast 

Railway, 410 U.S. 224 (1973), the Court 

established the rule that it is necessary 

to examine the particular statute 

involved when determining whether 

notice-and-comment procedures under 

5 U.S.C. 553 are available or, 

alternatively, whether there is a right to 

a formal hearing. In general, unless a 

statute specifically provides for rules to 

be made on the record after a hearing, 

the Federal courts have held that the 

informal rulemaking procedure is 

applicable. Thus, even statutory 

language such as ‘‘due notice and 

opportunity for a public hearing,’’ and 

‘‘opportunity for hearing,’’ have been 

held to mandate only informal 

procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553. See 3 

Administrative Law 16.03 (2018). 

One Federal court specifically 

addressed the language in 18 U.S.C. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66543 

926(b), on which one commenter relied, 

and rejected the commenter’s position. 

In that case, the plaintiff contended 

‘‘that all of the regulations must be 

invalidated because the Secretary failed 

to follow the procedures mandated in 

FOPA by refusing to afford interested 

parties an opportunity for an oral 

hearing.’’ However, the court held that 

the agency provided an ‘‘opportunity’’ 

for a hearing even though it decided 

against an oral hearing. The court wrote: 

FOPA contains no provision guaranteeing 

interested parties the right to an oral 

hearing. . . . It is well-settled that the 

requirement of a hearing does not necessitate 

that the hearing be oral. Here, the Secretary, 

pursuant to regulation, reserved for himself 

the right to determine whether an oral 

hearing should be held. He ultimately 

determined that an oral hearing was 

unwarranted, but did provide interested 

parties with the opportunity to submit 

written comments. This is all the hearing 

requirement in § 926(b) demands. 

Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475, 

485 (4th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 

Here, the Department has made the 

same determination that an oral hearing 

is unnecessary. 

V. Final Rule 

This final rule adopts, with minor 

changes, the proposed amendments to 

the definition of ‘‘machine gun’’ in 27 

CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11, which 

include clarification of the meaning of 

‘‘automatically’’ and ‘‘single function of 

the trigger’’ and clarification that bumpstock-type devices are machineguns. 

The Department accordingly determined 

that persons in possession of bumpstock-type devices must destroy or 

abandon the devices. 

In response to comments received and 

discussed in Part IV, the Department 

added employees of manufacturers and 

one additional manufacturer to the 

populations potentially affected by this 

rule, and incorporated sales tax of 

$19.00 per bump-stock-type device as 

part of the economic analysis. Also, the 

Department considered additional 

alternatives and inserted an OMB 

Circular A–4 Accounting Statement for 

clarity. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

13771 

Executive Orders 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs 

agencies to reduce regulation and 

control regulatory costs. This final rule 

is expected to have an impact of over 

$100 million in the first year of this 

regulatory action. Details on the 

estimated costs of this final rule can be 

found in the rule’s economic analysis 

below. 

The Attorney General has determined 

this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ that is economically significant 

under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866 because, as discussed, the rule 

will have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. This rule is a significant 

regulatory action that clarifies the 

meaning of the statutory definition of 

machinegun and reflects the public 

safety goals of the NFA and GCA. 

Further, this rule is a regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13771. See 

OMB, Guidance Implementing 

Executive Order 13771, Titled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’ (Apr. 5, 2017). 

This final rule is intended to interpret 

the definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ within 

the NFA and GCA such that it includes 

a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device 

that allows a semiautomatic firearm to 

shoot more than one shot with a single 

pull of the trigger by harnessing the 

recoil energy of the semiautomatic 

firearm to which it is affixed so that the 

trigger resets and continues firing 

without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. 

Accounting Statement 

Table 1 provides the annualized and 

unquantified costs and benefits to this 

final rule. These costs are annualized 

and discounted at 3% and 7%. 

TABLE 1—OMB CIRCULAR A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Midrange estimate Source 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits (discount rate in parentheses) ........... (7%) .............. N/A ............... (7%) .............. N/A ............... (7%) .............. N/A ............... Final Rule. 

(3%) .............. N/A ............... (3%) .............. N/A ............... (3%) .............. N/A.

Unquantified Benefits ........................................................................... • Limit access to bump-stock-type devices Final Rule. 

• Prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes. 

• Intended to reduce casualties in mass shootings. 

• Intended to help protect first responders when responding to shooting incidents. 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs (discount rate in parentheses) ............... (7%) .............. $35.0 mil ....... (7%) .............. $28.9 mil ....... (7%) .............. $32.0 mil ....... Final Rule. 

(3%) .............. $32.8 mil ....... (3%) .............. $27.6 mil ....... (3%) .............. $31.2 mil ....... Final Rule. 

Qualitative costs (unquantified) ............................................................ • Potential loss of wages for employees of bump-stock-type device manufacturers Final Rule. 

• Costs of advertising to inform owners of the need to dispose of their bump-stock-type devices 

• Lost consumer surplus to users of bump-stock-type devices. 

Transfers 

Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘on budget’’ ..................................... 0 0 0 Final Rule. 

From whom to whom? .......................................................................... N/A N/A N/A None. 

Annualized monetized transfers: ‘‘off-budget’’ ..................................... 0 0 0 Final Rule. 

From whom to whom? .......................................................................... N/A N/A N/A None. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66544 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—OMB CIRCULAR A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued 

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Midrange estimate Source 

Miscellaneous analysis/category Effects Source citation 

Effects on State, local, and/or tribal governments ............................... None. None. 

Effects on small businesses ................................................................. Significant effect on small businesses. Prepared FRFA. RFA. 

Effects on wages .................................................................................. None. None. 

Effects on growth .................................................................................. None. None. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

Agencies take regulatory action for 

various reasons. One of the reasons is to 

carry out Congress’s policy decisions, as 

expressed in statutes. Here, this 

rulemaking aims to apply Congress’s 

policy decision to prohibit 

machineguns. Another reason 

underpinning regulatory action is the 

failure of the market to compensate for 

negative externalities caused by 

commercial activity. A negative 

externality can be the byproduct of a 

transaction between two parties that is 

not accounted for in the transaction. 

This final rule is addressing a negative 

externality. The negative externality of 

the commercial sale of bump-stock-type 

devices is that they could be used for 

criminal purposes. This poses a public 

safety issue that the Department is 

trying to address. 

Summary of Affected Population, Costs, 

and Benefits 

Table 2 provides a summary of the 

affected population and anticipated 

costs and benefits to promulgating this 

rule. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS, AND BENEFITS

Category Affected populations, costs, and benefits 

Applicability ..................................... • Manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices. 

• Employees of bump-stock-type device manufacturers. 

• Retail sellers of bump-stock-type devices. 

• Gun owners who own bump-stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future. 

Affected Population ......................... • 1 manufacturer of bump-stock-type devices. 

• 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type devices. 

• Owners and future consumers of bump-stock-type devices. 

Total Quantified Costs to Industry, 

Public, and Government (7% Discount Rate).

• $245.5 million present value over 10 years. 

• $35.0 million annualized. 

Unquantified Costs .......................... • Potential loss of wages for employees of bump-stock-type device manufacturers. 

• Costs of advertising to inform owners of the need to dispose of their bump-stock-type devices. 

• Lost consumer surplus to users of bump-stock-type devices. 

Unquantified Benefits ...................... • Limits access to bump-stock-type devices. 

• Prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes. 

• Intended to reduce casualties in mass shootings. 

• Intended to help protect first responders when responding to shooting incidents. 

Changes from the NPRM to FR 

Table 3 presents a summary of the 

changes to economic effects from NPRM 

to final rule. 

TABLE 3—CHANGES IN BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES FROM NPRM TO THE FINAL RULE

Variables NPRM Final Rule Difference Description of Changes 

Applicability ........................ N/A .................................... Employees of bump-stocktype device manufacturers.Adding employees of 

bump-stock-type device 

manufacturers.

Per public comment, ATF 

included employees of 

manufacturers qualitatively. 

2 manufacturers ................ 1 manufacturer .................. Subtracted 1 ...................... Based on publicly available information. 

Cost of Bump-Stock-Type 

Devices.

$301 .................................. $320 .................................. $19 .................................... Per public comment, ATF 

included State and local 

taxes. 

Destruction ........................ $5.4 million ........................ $9.4 million ........................ $3.9 million ........................ Change in policy. 

Future Sales ...................... $213.0 million .................... $198.9 million .................... $14.1 million ...................... Change from 2 large retailers selling bump-stocktype devices to 1. 

Government Cost .............. $0 ...................................... $1.3 million ........................ $1.3 million ........................ Change in policy. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66545 

15Note that many commenters assumed that each 

person who owns a bump-stock-type device owns 

one device. This overestimates the number of 

owners because owners of such devices may own 

more than one, as evidenced by the Las Vegas 

shooter, who allegedly owned at least 12. 

16Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF–2018–0002– 

16668, available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=ATF-2018-0002-16668 (last visited 

Nov. 16, 2018). 

TABLE 3—CHANGES IN BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES FROM NPRM TO THE FINAL RULE—Continued 

Variables NPRM Final Rule Difference Description of Changes 

Alternatives 

Amnesty or 

‘‘grandfathering’’.

This alternative was rejected because since the passage of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), amnesty registration of machineguns is not legally permissible Per public comment. 

Licensing and background 

checks.

This alternative was rejected because only Congress can add a new class of firearm 

and impose licensing or acquisition requirements on them. 

Per public comment. 

Remuneration .................... This alternative was rejected because only Congress has the authority to offer monetary compensation. Per public comment. 

Medical exemption ............ This alternative was rejected because neither the NFA nor the GCA provides for medical exemptions to acquire a firearm. Only Congress can add medical exemptions Per public comment. 

Future production and 

sales.

This alternative was rejected because ATF does not have the authority to restrict only 

the future manufacture or sale of bump-stock-type devices 

Per public comment. 

Quota ................................. This alternative was rejected because ATF lacks authority to implement it, as all devices determined to be machineguns are prohibited across the board Per public comment. 

Instituting a tax .................. This alternative was rejected because excise tax is regulated by statute and only 

Congress can determine the amount of excise tax on an item 

Per public comment. 

Improved security at mass 

events.

This alternative was rejected because improved security must be paired with reasonable regulations to increase public safety and reduce violent crime Per public comment. 

Congressional legislation .. This alternative was rejected because ATF has been delegated authority to issue 

rules to implement the NFA and GCA. This action will not prevent Congress from 

taking action on bump-stock-type devices 

Per public comment. 

Leave to States to regulate This alternative was rejected because ATF prioritizes public safety and preventing 

crime. This action will not prevent States from taking action on bump-stock-type devices 

Per public comment. 

Improved law enforcement This alternative was rejected because training and equipment must be paired with 

reasonable regulatory efforts to increase public safety and reduce violent crime 

Per public comment. 

Affected Population 

The populations affected by this rule 

are manufacturers of bump-stock-type 

devices, employees of bump-stock-type 

device manufacturers, retailers who sell 

them either in brick-and-mortar stores 

or online, and individuals who have 

purchased or would have wanted to 

purchase bump-stock-type devices. The 

number of entities and individuals 

affected are as follows: 

• 1 manufacturer 

• 2,281 retailers 

• An uncertain number of individuals who 

have purchased bump-stock-type devices 

or would have purchased them in the 

future 15

• An estimated 22 employees who were 

employed by one manufacturer, based on 

public comments 16

Because many bump-stock-type 

devices—including those ATF 

addressed in classification letters 

between 2008 and 2017—have not been 

subject to regulation under the GCA, 

ATF does not keep track of 

manufacturers or retailers of bumpstock-type devices, nor does ATF keep 

track or maintain a database of 

individuals who have purchased bumpstock-type devices. Therefore, the 

affected population of manufacturers 

and retailers is an estimate and based on 

publicly available information and, with 

respect to retailers who are also Federal 

firearms licensees (FFLs), is also based 

on ATF’s records in the Federal 

Firearms Licensing System. 

Based on publicly available 

information and comments on the 

NPRM, ATF estimates that since 2010, 

as many as seven domestic bump-stocktype device manufacturers have been in 

the marketplace, but due to patent 

infringement litigation, only three 

remained in the market. However, it 

appears two have ceased manufacturing 

bump-stock-type devices since 

publication of the NPRM due their 

inability to obtain liability insurance. 

For the estimate of the number of 

retailers, ATF filtered all FFLs for a list 

of potential sellers. While there are 

approximately 80,000 FFLs currently 

licensed, only certain types of FFLs sell 

firearms to the public. ATF first 

removed FFLs that do not sell firearms 

to the public. Next, since not all FFLs 

sell firearm accessories, ATF needed to 

estimate the number that do sell 

accessories. ATF assumed that FFLs that 

are likely to sell bump-stock-type 

devices also have websites. ATF ran a 

query on the FFL database and found 

that of those that sell firearms to the 

public, 2,270 have websites. Because 

sellers of firearm accessories do not 

necessarily sell firearms, ATF also 

performed an online search and found 

an additional 11 retailers who sell 

firearm accessories, but not firearms. 

Adding these two totals together, ATF 

estimates that there are 2,281 retailers of 

bump-stock-type devices. 

Because there are no records of 

individuals who have purchased firearm 

accessories, ATF does not have an 

estimated number of individuals who 

will be affected by this final rule. 

Although ATF lacks data on the number 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66546 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

17 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple 

Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), http://

www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443. 

18Based on an internal survey of large retailers. 

19Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF–2018–0001– 

27509, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=ATF-2018-0001-27509 (last visited on 

Nov. 16, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF– 

2018–0001–0433, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0433 (last visited on 

Nov. 16, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF– 

2018–0001–0128, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0128 (last visited on 

Nov. 16, 2018). 

20For a large retailer the average sales were 4,400 

= (3,800 + 5,000)/2. For a small retailer, the average 

sales were 8 = (5 + 10)/2. 

21Lucas, supra note 17. 

of individuals who have purchased 

bump-stock-type devices, ATF has some 

information from one manufacturer and 

four retailers on the volume of sales of 

such devices. Based on these reported 

amounts, ATF estimates that the 

number of bump-stock-type devices that 

were purchased during the 8-year 

period beginning in 2010 ranges from 

35,000 per year as a low estimate to 

75,000 per year as the high and primary 

estimate. ATF used a public 

commenter’s estimate of 400,000 total 

devices in circulation as a third 

estimate. For further information on the 

methodology of these estimates, please 

review the analysis regarding ‘‘Costs’’ 

below. 

Costs 

There are four primary sources of 

costs from this rule. First, for owners of 

bump-stock-type devices, there will be a 

lost value from no longer being able to 

possess or use the devices. Second, 

there will be a lost value from future 

sales of the devices. Third, there is a 

disposal cost associated with the need 

to destroy the devices or abandon them 

at the nearest ATF office. Finally, there 

will be a potential loss of wages from 

employees losing jobs from loss of 

manufacturing; however, the extent to 

which they will be unable to find 

replacement jobs is speculative. 

Manufacturing and Startup Cost 

Commenters suggested that ATF 

overlooked the capital expenses to start 

up a company to manufacture bumpstock-type devices. The Department 

considered the capital expenses for 

manufacturers. However, in light of the 

Las Vegas shooting and potential 

crowding of additional manufacturers, 

the Department determined that the 

potential for manufacturers to continue 

business in a potentially saturated 

market was doubtful. Furthermore, the 

Department has already calculated the 

foregone return on investment when the 

Department considered foregone 

production, so accounting for capital 

expenses would be double counting of 

expenditures. Therefore, the viability 

that these businesses will be successful 

is speculative and the capital expenses 

that they incurred are a sunk cost for 

those who put in the expense. 

Cost to the Public for Loss of Property 

One reason individuals purchase 

bump-stock-type devices is so that they 

can simulate automatic firing on a 

semiautomatic firearm. Commenters 

noted a variety of purposes for which 

bump-stock-type devices have been 

advertised and used, including for 

recreation and fun, assisting persons 

with mobility issues in firing quickly, 

self-defense, killing invasive pig 

species, and target practice (although, as 

some commenters observed, bumpstock-type devices impede firing 

accuracy). After implementation of this 

final rule, bump-stock-type devices that 

meet the definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ 

under the NFA and GCA cannot be 

lawfully possessed because the 

pertinent provision of the GCA, 18 

U.S.C. 922(o), prohibits persons from 

possessing a machinegun unless it was 

lawfully possessed before the effective 

date of section 922(o). Bump-stock-type 

devices currently possessed by 

individuals will have to be destroyed or 

abandoned prior to the effective date of 

this regulation. 

The lost value from no longer being 

able to use or purchase bump-stock-type 

devices will depend on the volume of 

sales in the market and the value that 

consumers place on the devices. ATF 

has limited information about the 

market for bump-stock-type devices. 

ATF first developed an estimate of the 

number of bump-stock-type devices in 

the marketplace based on information 

on retail sales provided in response to 

the ANPRM. One ANPRM commenter 

estimated that more than 400,000 bumpstock-type devices may have been sold. 

Based on publicly available information, 

ATF estimates that in the first two years 

that bump-stock-type devices were in 

the market, approximately 35,000 were 

sold per year.17 However, after 2011, 

other manufacturers entered the market 

and there is no available information 

regarding the total number of bumpstock-type devices manufactured. ATF 

is using publicly available information 

on manufacturing and combining it with 

the information on retail sales to 

estimate a range of the number of bumpstock-type devices in the marketplace. 

One retailer stated that it sold an 

average of 4,000 to 5,000 bump-stocktype devices per year.18 One commenter 

indicated that one retailer sold 3,800 

bump-stock-type devices annually, one 

sold 60 per year, and one sold 

approximately 5–10 per year.19 For the 

purposes of this regulatory analysis 

(RA), ATF assumes that a large retailer 

has sold 4,400, a midrange retailer has 

sold 60, and a small retailer has sold 

8.20 For the purposes of this analysis, 

ATF assumes the number of retailers by 

size are as follows: 

• 4 large * 4,400 annual sales 

• 755 midrange * 60 annual sales 

• 1,511 small * 8 annual sales 

The number of large retailers is a 

known number. As stated in the 

Affected Population section above, 

based on ATF’s internal database and 

online research, the remaining number 

of retailers is 2,270. For the purposes of 

this RA, ATF estimated that one-third of 

the remaining retailer population are 

midrange retailers, and the remaining 

1,511 are small retailers. Using these 

estimated numbers of retailers and 

annual sales by size of retailer, ATF 

estimated annual sales of about 75,000 

[(4 * 4,400) + (755 * 60) + (1,511 * 8)]. 

ATF next developed an estimate of 

the number of bump-stock-type devices 

in the United States based on 

information about the number of bumpstock-type devices manufactured. Based 

on publicly available information, ATF 

estimates that approximately 35,000 

bump-stock-type devices were sold in 

2010.21 Only in 2012 did other 

manufacturers enter the marketplace. 

For the purposes of this RA, ATF 

assumes that in the first two years of 

production, the one manufacturer 

produced the same 35,000 in years 2010 

and 2011. ATF has two sets of 

production estimates. Because no 

information is otherwise known about 

the production of bump-stock-type 

devices, ATF assumes that the low 

estimate of annual bump-stock-type 

device production is a constant 35,000, 

based on the one data point. As stated 

earlier, a public commenter provided an 

estimate of 400,000 bump-stock-type 

devices currently in circulation. To 

account for how these were purchased 

over the last 8 years, ATF also assumed 

the same 35,000 production in the first 

2 years, but spread out the remaining 

330,000 over the remaining 6 years, or 

about 55,000 per year. However, there 

were public comments that stated how 

many bump-stock-type devices were 

sold by that retailer. Using the retail 

sales information, ATF developed a 

third, higher estimate reflecting that 

when the other manufacturers entered 

the market, the number of bump-stocktype devices sold on the market 

annually could have been 75,000. 

The high estimate is ATF’s primary 

estimate because ATF knows that there 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66547 

22Slide Fire AR–15 Bump Fire Stocks (archived 

page on Jan. 28, 2017), https://web.archive.org/web/ 

20170128085532/http://www.slidefire.com/ 

products/ar-platform (last visited Nov. 28, 2018). 

23Bump Fire Systems (archived page on Feb. 21, 

2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20150221

050223/http://bumpfiresystems.com/ (last visited 

Nov. 28, 2018). 

was an increase in production starting 

in 2012. In 2012, there were other 

manufacturers who entered the market, 

and the first manufacturer increased 

production at some point thereafter. 

Furthermore, the primary estimate 

includes information provided by 

retailers as a more comprehensive 

outlook on the overall production 

numbers. For the purposes of this 

analysis, ATF assumes that both the 

increase in production and the market 

entry of other manufacturers all 

occurred in 2012. Table 4 provides the 

breakdown of production for the low 

estimate, public comment estimate, and 

primary estimate. 

TABLE 4—NUMBER OF BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES PRODUCED, BASED ON MANUFACTURER AND RETAIL SALES

Year Low estimate 

Public 

comment 

estimate 

Primary 

estimate 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 35,000 35,000 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 35,000 35,000 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 35,000 55,000 75,000 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 280,000 400,000 520,000 

In other words, the number of bumpstock-type devices held by the public 

could range from about 280,000 to about 

520,000. 

ATF does not know the production 

cost of bump-stock-type devices, but for 

the purposes of this RA, ATF uses the 

retail sales amounts as a proxy for the 

total value of these devices. For devices 

that have already been sold, there are 

two countervailing effects that affect the 

value of the devices. There may have 

been some depreciation of the devices 

since they were originally purchased, 

resulting in a value somewhat reduced 

from the retail price. On the other hand, 

some consumers may have been willing 

to pay more than the retail price for a 

bump-stock-type device, and for these 

individuals the devices would have a 

higher valuation than the retail price. 

Both of these effects are difficult to 

estimate, and here ATF assumes that the 

retail sales price is a reasonable proxy 

for the value of the devices. 

The primary manufacturer of bumpstock-type devices sells them at a price 

of $179.95 to $425.95.22 For the 

purposes of this RA, ATF estimates that 

the average sale price, including State 

and local taxes, for these bump-stocktype devices was $320.00 during the 

first two years they were sold. In 2012, 

at least one other manufacturer entered 

the market and started selling its 

devices at the rate of $99.99, making the 

overall prices for these devices lower.23

For the purposes of this RA, ATF 

assumes that the average sale price, 

including State and local taxes, for 

bump-stock-type devices from 2012 to 

2017 was $213.00. Based on these costs, 

multiplied by the number of bumpstock-type devices in the market, Table 

5 provides the sales value that the 

public has spent on these devices over 

the course of the last eight years. 

TABLE 5—AMOUNT SPENT ON BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES

[Undiscounted] 

Year Low estimate Midrange estimate Primary 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. $11,214,896 $11,214,896 $11,214,896 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 11,214,896 11,214,896 11,214,896 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 7,470,511 11,739,374 16,008,237 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 7,470,511 11,739,374 16,008,237 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 7,470,511 11,739,374 16,008,237 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 7,470,511 11,739,374 16,008,237 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 7,470,511 11,739,374 16,008,237 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 59,782,345 81,126,661 102,470,977 

ATF estimates that the total, 

undiscounted amount spent on bumpstock-type devices was $102.5 million. 

While the retail prices of these bumpstock-type devices remained constant 

over the eight years of sales, these 

purchases occurred over time; therefore, 

ATF presents the discounted value at 

3% and 7% in Table 6 to account for the 

present value of these purchases. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66548 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

24Cal. Penal Code sections 16930, 32900 (2018); 

2018 Conn. Acts 18–29 (Reg. Sess.); Del. Code Ann. 

tit. 11, section 1444(a)(6) (2018); Fla. Stat. section 

790.222 (2018); Haw. Rev. Stat. section 134–8.5 

(2018); Md. Code. Ann., Crim. Law section 4–305.1 

(2018); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, section 121, 131 

(2018); N.J. Stat. Ann. sections 2C:39–3(l), 2C:39– 

9(j); 11 R.I. Gen. Laws section 11–47–8(d) (2018); 

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, section 4022 (2018); 2018 

Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 7, pp. 196–220. 

TABLE 6—THE AMOUNT SPENT PURCHASING BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES, DISCOUNTED AT 3% AND 7% 

Year Undiscounted 3% 7% 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. $11,214,896 $13,001,138 $15,729,472 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 11,214,896 12,622,464 14,700,441 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 16,008,237 17,492,633 19,610,779 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 16,008,237 16,983,139 18,327,831 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 16,008,237 16,488,484 17,128,814 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 16,008,237 16,008,237 16,008,237 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 16,008,237 15,541,978 14,960,969 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 102,470,977 108,138,073 116,466,542 

Annualized Cost ........................................................................................................................... ........................ 15,404,959 19,504,391 

Because these purchases occurred in 

the past, ATF’s discount years start at -5 

and increase to 0 to account for the 

Executive Order 13771 standard that 

costs be presented in 2016 dollars. With 

these assumptions, ATF estimates that 

the annualized, discounted amount 

spent on bump-stock-type devices was 

$15.4 million and $19.5 million at 3% 

and 7%, respectively. 

Based on the same discounting 

formula, ATF estimates that the total 

undiscounted cost for the low estimate 

is $59.7 million, and the total 

discounted values are $64.1 million and 

$70.6 million at 3% and 7%, 

respectively. The annualized values for 

the low estimates of the total number of 

bump-stock-type devices sold are $9.1 

million and $11.8 million at 3% and 

7%, respectively. For the 400,000-unit 

estimate provided by the public 

commenter, the total undiscounted 

amount is $81.1 million, and the total 

discounted values would be $86.1 

million and $93.5 million at 3% and 

7%, respectively. The annualized values 

for the 400,000-unit sales estimate are 

$12.3 million and $15.7 million at 3% 

and 7%, respectively. 

Forgone Future Production and Sales 

ATF has estimated the lost production 

and lost sales that will occur in the 10 

years after the implementation of this 

final rule. These estimates take into 

account lost revenue from 

manufacturers and retailers. ATF does 

not parse out manufacturing and retail 

sales, in order to limit double counting. 

In order to do this, ATF needed to 

predict the number of devices that 

would have been sold in the future in 

the absence of a rule. Such a prediction 

should take account of recent expected 

changes in the demand for and supply 

of bump-stock-type devices. For 

example, based on a survey, three of the 

four known, large former retailers of 

bump-stock-type devices no longer sell 

bump-stock-type devices as a result of 

the Las Vegas shooting, nor do they 

intend to sell them in the future. 

Moreover, while ATF has estimated the 

number of bump-stock-type devices 

manufactured since 2010, ATF is 

without sufficient information to 

estimate the number of individuals who 

were interested in acquiring bumpstock-type devices prior to the Las Vegas 

shooting but would no longer want 

them due to the shooting. 

Another recent change affecting 

individuals’ future purchases of bumpstock-type devices is that certain States 

have already banned such devices. 

These States are California, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, and Washington.24 The 

effect of States’ bans on individuals’ 

future purchases of bump-stock-type 

devices should not be attributed to this 

final rule since these reductions in 

purchases will happen with or without 

the rule. However, ATF was unable to 

quantify the impact of States’ bans and 

thus was unable to account for the 

future effects of these bans in the 

estimate of the effects of the final rule. 

Based on previously mentioned 

comments from large retailers, ATF 

expects that, even in the absence of this 

rule, some retailers would not sell 

bump-stock-type devices in the future. 

In order to estimate the expected future 

reduction in demand for bump-stocktype devices as a result of the Las Vegas 

shooting, ATF assumes that the 

reduction of sales by large retailers that 

has already occurred would be a 

reasonable estimate of the future 

reduction of sales overall that would 

occur in the absence of this rule. In the 

NPRM, ATF estimated that two of the 

four large retailers would remain in the 

market to sell bump-stock-type devices. 

83 FR at 13452. Since then, one of these 

remaining retailers merged with one of 

the large retailers that opted not to sell 

bump-stock-type devices, resulting in 

only one large retailer remaining in the 

market. For the purposes of this 

regulatory analysis, it is estimated that 

the one large retailer that would 

otherwise intend to keep selling bumpstock-type devices sells 4,400 of such 

devices annually. Removing the effects 

of these three large retailers from the 

future market reduces ATF’s primary 

estimate of 74,988 in past annual 

production to an estimate of 62,084 (= 

75,284¥13,200) in annual sales that 

would have occurred in the future in the 

absence of this rule. Table 7 provides 

the estimated breakdown of lost 

production and sales forgone due to this 

rule. 

TABLE 7—FORGONE PRODUCTION AND SALES OF FUTURE BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES

Year 

Number of 

bump-stock-type 

devices 

Undiscounted 3% 7% 

2018 ................................................................................. 62,084 $19,893,303 $19,313,886.10 $18,591,871.67 

2019 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 18,751,345.73 17,375,581.00 

2020 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 18,205,190.03 16,238,860.74 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66549 

25Midrange: $4,500 = ($18,000/$140,000) * 

$35,000. Small: $74 = (8/3,800) * $35,000. 

26BLS Series ID CMU2010000000000D, 

CMU2010000000000P (Private Industry 

Compensation = $32.35)/(Private Industry Wages 

and Salaries = $22.55) = 1.43. BLS average 2016. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://beta.bls.gov/ 

dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[cm]&s=popularity:D. 

TABLE 7—FORGONE PRODUCTION AND SALES OF FUTURE BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES—Continued 

Year 

Number of 

bump-stock-type 

devices 

Undiscounted 3% 7% 

2021 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 17,674,941.77 15,176,505.37 

2022 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 17,160,137.64 14,183,649.88 

2023 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 16,660,327.81 13,255,747.55 

2024 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 16,175,075.54 12,388,549.11 

2025 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 15,703,956.84 11,578,083.28 

2026 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 15,246,560.04 10,820,638.58 

2027 ................................................................................. 62,084 19,893,303 14,802,485.47 10,112,746.34 

Total .......................................................................... ................................ 198,933,027 169,693,906.98 139,722,233.51 

Annualized Cost ............................................................... ................................ ................................ 24,173,981.19 23,398,969.82 

Based on these estimates, ATF 

estimates that the undiscounted value of 

forgone future sales over 10 years is 

$198.9 million, undiscounted, or $24.2 

million and $23.4 million, annualized 

and discounted at 3% and 7%. 

Disposal 

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 of the time 

and effort to destroy or ensure the 

destruction of any devices held in 

inventory. In addition, 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. 

Individuals who have purchased 

bump-stock-type devices prior to the 

implementation of this rule must 

destroy the devices themselves prior to 

the effective date of the rule or abandon 

them at their local ATF office. Options 

for destroying the devices include 

melting, crushing, or shredding in a 

manner that renders the device 

incapable of ready restoration. Since the 

majority of bump-stock-type devices are 

made of plastic material, individuals 

can use a hammer to break apart the 

devices and throw the pieces away. 

Other destruction options that ATF has 

historically accepted include torch 

cutting or sawing the device in a 

manner that removes at least 1⁄4 inch of 

material for each cut and completely 

severs design features critical to the 

functionality of the device as a bumpstock-type device. 

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. 

Based on comments received on the 

ANPRM, unsellable inventory could be 

worth approximately $35,000 per large 

retailer. One commenter, assumed to be 

a large retailer, stated that its gross sales 

were $140,000. Another commenter 

assumed to be a midrange retailer had 

gross sales of $18,000. No known sales 

were reported for a small retailer. Based 

on the proportion of sales among the 

large, midrange, and small retailers, 

ATF estimates that the amounts in 

existing inventory for each type of 

retailer are as follows: 

• Large retailer: $35,000; 

• midrange retailer: $4,500; and 

• small retailer: $74.25

There were no comments on the NPRM 

about these assumptions or the 

methodology used based on the ANPRM 

comments. Therefore, the analysis used 

to determine the cost of unsellable 

inventory remains the same for this final 

rule. 

The commenter assumed to be a large 

retailer also commented that the 

opportunity cost of time needed to 

destroy existing inventory will be 

approximately $700. ATF’s subject 

matter experts estimate that a retailer 

could use a maintenance crew to 

destroy existing inventory. To 

determine the hourly time needed to 

destroy existing inventory, ATF used 

the $700 reported amount, divided by 

the loaded wage rate of a building 

cleaning worker. ATF subject matter 

experts also suggest that existing 

packers would be used for a midrange 

retailer and the minimum wage would 

be used for a small retailer. A multiplier 

of 1.43 was applied to unloaded wage 

rates to account for fringe benefits.26

Table 9 provides the wages used for this 

analysis. 

TABLE 9—WAGE SERIES TO DESTROY EXISTING INVENTORY

Wage series Series code Unloaded 

wage rate 

Loaded 

wage rate Source 

Individual ........................... .......................................... $13.60 $13.60 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/ 

docs/2016%20Revised%20Value

%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf. 

Minimum Wage Rate ........ Min Wage ........................ 7.25 10.40 https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/ 

2016/home.htm. 

Packers, Packagers, and 

Handlers.

53–7064 ........................... 11.74 16.84 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes537064.htm. 

Retail Salespersons .......... 41–2031 ........................... 13.07 18.75 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes412031.htm. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66550 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 9—WAGE SERIES TO DESTROY EXISTING INVENTORY—Continued 

Wage series Series code Unloaded 

wage rate 

Loaded 

wage rate Source 

Building Cleaning Workers, 

All Other.

37–2019 ........................... 14.88 21.34 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes372019.htm. 

Based on the estimated wages and 

reported opportunity cost of time, ATF 

estimates that it will take a large retailer 

32.8 hours, a midrange retailer 0.45 

hours, and a small retailer 0.25 hours to 

destroy existing inventory. Table 10 

provides the per-retailer estimated 

opportunity cost of time. 

TABLE 10—OPPORTUNITY COST OF TIME TO DESTROY EXISTING INVENTORY

Population Incremental 

cost 

Hourly 

burden 

Opportunity 

cost of time 

Individual ...................................................................................................................................... $13.60 0.25 $3.40 

Retailer (Large) ............................................................................................................................ 21.34 32.8 699.95 

Retailer (Midrange) ...................................................................................................................... 16.84 0.45 7.58 

Retailer (Small) ............................................................................................................................ 19.51 0.25 4.88 

As stated earlier, ATF estimates that 

there are 520,000 bump-stock-type 

devices already purchased by the 

public. For the purposes of this analysis, 

we estimate the following calculations 

to destroy bump-stock-type devices: 

• Individual: $1.3 million = (1.8 million * 

75%) 

• Retailer (Large): 3 retailers * $699.95 

opportunity cost of time + ($35,000 

inventory * 75%) 

• Retailer (Midrange): 569 retailers * $7.58 

opportunity cost of time + ($4,500 

inventory * 75%) 

• Retailer (Small): 1139 retailers * $4.88 

opportunity cost of time + ($74 inventory 

* 75%) 

Based on the opportunity cost of time 

per bump-stock-type device, and the 

estimated opportunity cost of time per 

retailer, ATF provides the cost to 

destroy all existing bump-stock-type 

devices in Table 11. 

TABLE 11—COST OF EXISTING INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITY COST OF TIME TO DESTROY EXISTING DEVICES BY

INDIVIDUAL AND RETAILER SIZE

Original cost Reduced cost Net change 

Individual ...................................................................................................................................... $1,768,000 $1,326,000 $442,000 

Retailer (Large) ............................................................................................................................ 142,800 80,850 61,950 

Retailer (Midrange) ...................................................................................................................... 3,421,252 1,924,687 1,496,565 

Retailer (Small) ............................................................................................................................ 116,279 66,176 50,103 

Total Disposal Cost .............................................................................................................. 5,448,330 3,397,713 2,050,618 

For those abandoning bump-stocktype devices, we estimate that 130,000 

individuals, 1 large retailer, 138 

midrange retailers, and 139 small 

retailers will abandon them at their 

nearest ATF office. Table 12 provides 

the cost of gas, travel time, and mileage 

to abandon them. 

TABLE 12—COST OF GAS, TRAVEL TIME, AND MILEAGE

Cost item Rate Source 

Gas Consumption ....................................................................... $0.545 https://www.gsa.gov/travel-resources. 

Hours of Weekend Travel Time ................................................. 1.556 https://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf. 

Miles Traveled ............................................................................ 7 https://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf. 

Assuming these devices will be 

abandoned during leisure hours, ATF 

uses the leisure wage rate of $13.60. 

ATF estimates that the cost to travel to 

ATF offices will be $24.98 per trip = 

(13.60 leisure wage * 1.556 hours of 

weekend travel time) + ($0.545 gas 

consumption * 7 miles traveled). For the 

purposes of this analysis, we estimate 

the following calculations to destroy 

bump-stock-type devices: 

• Individual: 520,000 bump-stock-type 

devices * 25% * $24.98 

• Retailer (Large): (1 retailer * $24.98 travel 

cost) + ($35,000 inventory * 25%) 

• Retailer (Midrange): (190 retailers *$24.98 

travel cost) + ($4,500 inventory * 25%) 

• Retailer (Small): (379 retailers * $24.98 

travel cost) + ($74 inventory * 75%) 

Table 13 provides the additional cost of 

abandoning bump-stock-type devices at 

ATF offices. 

TABLE 13—DISPOSAL COST TO ABANDON BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES AT

ATF OFFICES

Individual ............................... $3,247,400 

Retailer (Large) ..................... 8,775 

Retailer (Midrange) ............... 1,375,025 

Retailer (Small) ..................... 1,373,974 

Total Cost to Abandon .. 6,005,174 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66551 

27Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 

2018–GS, https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/ pdf/2018/GS_h.pdf. 

We treat all costs of disposal of 

existing devices owned by individuals 

or held in inventory by retailers or 

manufacturers as if they occur in 2018. 

Therefore, the disposal costs of the rule 

in 2018 would include the total 

undiscounted value of existing stock of 

bump-stock-type devices and the total 

cost of disposal from Tables 11 and 13 

for the total disposal cost of $9.4 

million. 

Government Costs 

Because ATF allows bump-stock-type 

device owners to abandon these devices 

at ATF offices, ATF incorporates the 

government cost to dispose of these 

devices. ATF estimates that an agent at 

a GS–13 level will dispose of the device 

in 0.25 hours at a loaded wage rate of 

$41.07 per hour.27 ATF anticipates that 

it will cost $1.3 million to destroy these 

devices in-house. 

Overall, ATF estimates that the total 

cost of this final rule would be $312.1 

million over a 10-year period of future 

analysis. This cost includes the firstyear cost to destroy all existing bumpstock-type devices, including unsellable 

inventory and opportunity cost of time. 

Table 14 provides the 10-year cost of 

this final rule. 

TABLE 14—10-YEAR COST OF FINAL RULE

Year Undiscounted 3% 7% 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 133,101,942 129,225,186 124,394,338 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 18,751,346 17,375,581 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 18,205,190 16,238,861 

2021 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 17,674,942 15,176,505 

2022 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 17,160,138 14,183,650 

2023 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 16,660,328 13,255,748 

2024 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 16,175,076 12,388,549 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 15,703,957 11,578,083 

2026 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 15,246,560 10,820,639 

2027 ............................................................................................................................................. 19,893,303 14,802,485 10,112,746 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 312,141,666 279,605,207 245,524,700 

Annualized Cost ........................................................................................................................... ........................ 32,778,260 34,957,194 

The total 7% discounted cost is $249.6 

million, and the annualized discounted 

costs would be $32.8 million and $35.0 

million annualized at 3% and 7% 

respectively. 

Cost Savings 

ATF did not calculate any cost 

savings for this final rule. 

Benefits 

As reported by commenters, the 

purpose of this rule is to amend ATF 

regulations to clarify that bump-stocktype devices are ‘‘machineguns’’ as 

defined by the NFA and GCA. 

Additionally, a desired outcome of this 

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 bumpstock-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. 

Alternatives 

Alternative 1—No change alternative. 

This alternative would leave the 

regulations in place as they currently 

stand. Since there would be no changes 

to regulations, there would be no cost, 

savings, or benefits to this alternative. 

Alternative 2—Patronizing a shooting 

range. Individuals wishing to 

experience shooting a ‘‘full-auto’’ 

firearm could go to a shooting range that 

provides access to lawfully registered 

‘‘pre-1986’’ machineguns to customers, 

where the firearm remains on the 

premises and under the control of the 

shooting range. ATF does not have the 

information to determine which, where, 

or how many gun ranges provide such 

a service and is therefore not able to 

quantify this alternative. 

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-type devices. 

Public comments from the NPRM 

suggested other alternatives: 

1. Provide amnesty or ‘‘grandfathering.’’ 

This alternative was rejected because since 

the passage of 18 U.S.C. 922(o), amnesty 

registration of machineguns is not legally 

permissible; all devices determined to be 

machineguns are prohibited except as 

provided by exceptions established by 

statute. 

2. Provide licensing and background 

checks. This alternative was rejected because 

only Congress can add a new class of firearm 

to the GCA and impose licensing or 

acquisition requirements on it. 

3. Provide compensation for the 

destruction of the devices. This alternative 

was rejected because only Congress has the 

authority to offer monetary compensation. 

4. Provide a medical exemption. This 

alternative was rejected because neither the 

NFA nor the GCA provides for medical 

exemptions to acquire an otherwise 

prohibited firearm. Only Congress can add 

medical exemptions. 

5. Prohibit only future manufacture and 

sales. This alternative was rejected because 

ATF does not have the authority to restrict 

only the future manufacture or sale of bumpstock-type devices. 

6. Provide a quota. This alternative was 

rejected because ATF lacks authority to 

implement it, as all devices determined to be 

machineguns are prohibited across the board. 

7. Institute a tax. This alternative was 

rejected because ATF lacks authority to 

establish excise taxes. 

8. Improve security at mass events. This 

alternative was rejected because improved 

security must be paired with reasonable 

regulations to increase public safety and 

reduce violent crime. 

9. Congressional legislation. This 

alternative was rejected because issuance of 

this rule will not prevent Congress from 

taking action on bump-stock-type devices. 

10. Leave the issue to the States. This 

alternative was rejected because ATF is 

responsible for implementing the NFA and 

GCA, Federal laws designed to maintain 

public safety. Issuance of this rule will not 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66552 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

prevent States from taking action on bumpstock-type devices. 

11. Improved law enforcement capabilities. 

This alternative was rejected because while 

training and equipment may assist law 

enforcement efforts, they are not a substitute 

for the Department’s exercise of its public 

safety responsibility of interpreting the NFA 

and GCA appropriately. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, the relationship 

between the Federal Government and the 

States, or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of 

government. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 6 of Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), the Attorney General has 

determined that this regulation does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to warrant 

the preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

C. Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

Summary of Findings 

ATF performed a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis of the impacts on 

small businesses and other entities from 

the final rule. Based on the information 

from this analysis, ATF found: 

• It is estimated that the remaining 

manufacturer will go out of business; 

• There are 2,281 retailers, of which most 

are estimated to be small; 

• There are no relevant government 

entities. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory 

issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 

consistent with the objectives of the rule 

and of applicable statutes, to fit 

regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ Pub. L. 

96–354, section 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 

(1980). 

Under the RFA, the agency is required 

to consider if this rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have such 

an impact. If the agency determines that 

it will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. 

Under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 604(a)), the 

final regulatory flexibility analysis must 

contain: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in response to 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 

statement of the assessment of the agency of 

such issues, and a statement of any changes 

made in the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the proposed 

rule, and a detailed statement of any change 

made to the proposed rule in the final rule 

as a result of the comments; 

• A description of and an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the rule 

will apply or an explanation of why no such 

estimate is available; 

• A description of the projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule, including an 

estimate of the classes of small entities that 

will be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

• A description of the steps the agency has 

taken to minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities consistent with the 

stated objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, policy, 

and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the final rule and why each one 

of the other significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency that affect the 

impact on small entities was rejected. 

The RFA covers a wide range of small 

entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 

601(3)–(6). ATF determined that the 

rule affects a variety of large and small 

businesses (see the section below titled 

‘‘A description of and an estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule will apply or an explanation of why 

no such estimate is available’’). Based 

on the requirements above, ATF 

prepared the following regulatory 

flexibility analysis assessing the impact 

on small entities from the rule. 

A Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

Agencies take regulatory action for 

various reasons. One of the reasons is to 

carry out Congress’s policy decisions, as 

expressed in statutes. Here, this 

rulemaking aims to apply Congress’s 

policy decision to prohibit 

machineguns. Another reason 

underpinning this regulatory action is 

the failure of the market to compensate 

for negative externalities caused by 

commercial activity. A negative 

externality can be the byproduct of a 

transaction between two parties that is 

not accounted for in the transaction. 

This final rule is addressing a negative 

externality. The negative externality of 

the commercial sale of bump-stock-type 

devices is that they could be used for 

criminal purposes. This poses a public 

safety issue, which the Department is 

trying to address. 

A Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

Several commenters suggested that 

this rule will devastate companies that 

manufacture bump-stock-type devices 

and the local communities that they 

employ. The Department concurs that 

this rule will prevent manufacturers of 

bump-stock-type devices from 

producing and selling them. Based on 

publicly available information, the 

Department estimates that there is only 

one manufacturer actively producing 

and selling such devices. For the 

purposes of this rule, it is considered a 

small business. Due to the requirements 

of the NFA, there are no alternatives 

that are scalable by business size for this 

rule. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

RFA requires agencies to consider the 

innovative impacts that small 

businesses have on the firearms market. 

ATF interprets the RFA’s usage of 

‘‘innovation’’ in terms of regulatory 

approaches that the agency could use to 

allow for small businesses to compete 

against non-small businesses. As there 

are no non-small businesses that 

manufacture bump-stock-type devices, 

ATF was unable to determine any 

regulatory approaches that would allow 

small manufacturers to compete with 

non-small businesses with respect to 

manufacturing bump-stock-type 

devices. 

The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

There were no comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the proposed rule. Therefore, no 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 66553 

changes were made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of comments. 

A Description of and an Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of 

Why No Such Estimate Is Available 

This rule would affect primarily 

manufacturers of bump-stock-type 

devices, FFLs that sell bump-stock-type 

devices, and other small retailers of 

firearm accessories that have invested in 

the bump-stock-type device industry. 

Based on publicly available information, 

there is one manufacturer affected. Of 

the known retailers, the large retailers 

do not intend to continue selling bumpstock-type devices. There may be some 

small retailers that would have intended 

to continue selling these devices had 

this final rule not been promulgated and 

would thus be affected by this final rule. 

Based on the information from this 

analysis, ATF found: 

• There is 1 manufacturer who is likely to 

be a small entity; 

• There are 2,270 retailers who are likely 

to be small entities; 

• There are no government jurisdictions 

affected by this final rule; and 

• There are no nonprofits found in the 

data. 

A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to 

the Requirement and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

There are no reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements for this 

final rule. The only relevant compliance 

requirement consists of disposing of all 

existing inventory of bump-stock-type 

devices for small entities that carry 

them. There would not be any 

professional skills necessary to record or 

report in this final rulemaking. 

A Description of the Steps the Agency 

Has Taken to Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

Alternatives were considered in this 

final rule. Alternatives include making 

no regulatory changes. ATF rejected this 

alternative because it would not be 

consistent with ATF’s interpretation of 

the statutory term ‘‘machinegun.’’ There 

were no other regulatory alternatives to 

this proposal that ATF has been able to 

identify that accomplish the objective of 

this final rule. 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is a major rule as defined by 

section 251 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule is likely to 

be considered major as it is 

economically significant and is 

projected to have an effect of over $100 

million on the economy in at least the 

first year of the rule. 

F. Congressional Review Act 

This rule is a major rule as defined by 

the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

804. This rule is likely to be considered 

major as it is economically significant 

and is projected to have an effect of over 

$100 million on the economy in at least 

the first year of the rule’s existence. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This final rule does not impose any 

new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

Disclosure 

Copies of the final rule, proposed 

rule, and comments received in 

response to the proposed rule will be 

available for public inspection through 

the Federal eRulemaking portal, http:// 

regulations.gov, or by appointment 

during normal business hours at: ATF 

Reading Room, Room 1E–062, 99 New 

York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226; 

telephone: (202) 648–8740. 

List of Subjects 

27 CFR Part 447 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and munitions, 

Chemicals, Customs duties and 

inspection, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scientific equipment, 

Seizures and forfeitures. 

27 CFR Part 478 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and munitions, 

Customs duties and inspection, Exports, 

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, 

Law enforcement officers, Military 

personnel, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Research, 

Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation. 

27 CFR Part 479 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise 

taxes, Exports, Imports, Military 

personnel, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seizures 

and forfeitures, Transportation. 

Authority and Issuance 

Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts 

447, 478, and 479 are amended as 

follows: 

PART 447—IMPORTATION OF ARMS, 

AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF 

WAR 

■ 1. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 447 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78 

FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013). 

■ 2. In § 447.11, revise the definition of 

‘‘Machinegun’’ to read as follows: 

§ 447.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Machinegun. A ‘‘machinegun’’, 

‘‘machine pistol’’, ‘‘submachinegun’’, or 

‘‘automatic rifle’’ is a firearm 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. For 

purposes of this definition, the term 

‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies ‘‘shoots, 

is designed to shoot, or can be readily 

restored to shoot,’’ means functioning as 

the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the 

firing of multiple rounds through a 

single function of the trigger; and 

‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a 

single pull of the trigger and analogous 

motions. The term ‘‘machinegun’’ 

includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., 

a device that allows a semi-automatic 

firearm to shoot more than one shot 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3
66554 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

with a single pull of the trigger by 

harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed 

so that the trigger resets and continues 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. 

* * * * * 

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS 

AND AMMUNITION 

■ 3. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 478 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921– 

931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). 

■ 4. In § 478.11, revise the definition of 

‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences 

at the end of the definition to read as 

follows: 

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Machine gun. * * * For purposes of 

this definition, the term ‘‘automatically’’ 

as it modifies ‘‘shoots, is designed to 

shoot, or can be readily restored to 

shoot,’’ means functioning as the result 

of a self-acting or self-regulating 

mechanism that allows the firing of 

multiple rounds through a single 

function of the trigger; and ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ means a single 

pull of the trigger and analogous 

motions. The term ‘‘machine gun’’ 

includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., 

a device that allows a semi-automatic 

firearm to shoot more than one shot 

with a single pull of the trigger by 

harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed 

so that the trigger resets and continues 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. 

* * * * * 

PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, 

DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND 

CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS 

■ 5. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 479 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5812; 26 U.S.C. 5822; 

26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805. 

■ 6. In § 479.11, revise the definition of 

‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences 

at the end of the definition to read as 

follows: 

§ 479.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Machine gun. * * * For purposes of 

this definition, the term ‘‘automatically’’ 

as it modifies ‘‘shoots, is designed to 

shoot, or can be readily restored to 

shoot,’’ means functioning as the result 

of a self-acting or self-regulating 

mechanism that allows the firing of 

multiple rounds through a single 

function of the trigger; and ‘‘single 

function of the trigger’’ means a single 

pull of the trigger and analogous 

motions. The term ‘‘machine gun’’ 

includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., 

a device that allows a semi-automatic 

firearm to shoot more than one shot 

with a single pull of the trigger by 

harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed 

so that the trigger resets and continues 

firing without additional physical 

manipulation of the trigger by the 

shooter. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Matthew G. Whitaker, 

Acting Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27763 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES3