[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66514-66554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27763]



[[Page 66513]]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 246

December 26, 2018

Part IV





Department of Justice





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479





Bump-Stock-Type Devices; Rule

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

[[Page 66514]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 bump-stock-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 
self-acting 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 Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulations 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 bump-stock-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

[[Page 66515]]

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-stock-type 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 self-acting 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 Sec. Sec.  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 self-regulating 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 Sec.  
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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-type devices are 
machineguns that are subject to the NFA and GCA. The provisions of 
those statutes addressing machineguns are designed to increase public 
safety by, among other things, limiting legal access to them. 
Consistent with the NFA and GCA, therefore, a desired outcome of this 
final rule is increased public safety.

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NFA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 66516]]

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 non-trigger 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 bump-stock-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-stock-type 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-stock-
type 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 AK-type 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 pistol-grip/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 
bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-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

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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

[[Page 66518]]

limited circumstances, under 18 U.S.C. 922(o).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Examples of recent ATF classification letters relying on the 
``single pull of the trigger'' interpretation to classify submitted 
devices as machineguns include the following:
    <bullet> 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.''
    <bullet> 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 two-position 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-
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 self-acting 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 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 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66519]]

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 self-acting 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 66520]]

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 bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 
bump-stock-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

[[Page 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-stock-
type 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-stock-type 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 self-defense 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 bump-stock-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 law-abiding 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

[[Page 66522]]

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-stock-type 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 
short-barreled shotguns).
    This body of precedent, in addition to Heller, strongly supports 
the Department's view that a bump-stock-type 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,

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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.

[[Page 66524]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-
stock-type 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

[[Page 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-stock-type 
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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-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 Sec.  
922(g)(9)'s enactment because the conduct prohibited by Sec.  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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-type devices ``under the

[[Page 66526]]

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-stock-type 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 Sec.  
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).

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 66528]]

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 
bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 
bump-stock-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 
cost-benefit 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

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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 bump-
stock-type devices would have no measurable effect on the current rate 
of crime or enhance public safety. One commenter argued that the use of 
bump-stock-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 gun-
related 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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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.

[[Page 66530]]

Department Response
    The Department disagrees that law-abiding 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 
bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 non-machineguns. 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-stock-
type devices because they convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm 
into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting 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

[[Page 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-
stock-type 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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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 re-engages 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 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 (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

[[Page 66532]]

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 re-engage 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 bump-
stock-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 
barrel-shroud 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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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, bump-stock-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

[[Page 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 self-regulating mechanism.'' Bump-
stock-type 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 self-regulating 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-stock-type 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 
self-acting 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 bump-stock-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 semi-automatic into an 
automatic weapon under the NFA.''
    Additionally, other commenters objected to classifying other 
``rate-increasing 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 bump-stock-
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

[[Page 66534]]

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-stock-type devices only. 
For instance, one commenter proposed that the following be added to the 
definition of bump-stock-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

[[Page 66535]]

``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 
bump-stock-type devices satisfy the definition of ``machinegun'' under 
the NFA, so regulatory action is necessary to implement the NFA and 
GCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OMB 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 bump-stock-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 bump-
stock-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 bump-stock-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 
bump-stock-type device, as ATF has explained that such a device 
functions ``as a self-acting 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-stock-type 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-stock-
type 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

[[Page 66536]]

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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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 buy-back 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 bump-stock-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

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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-stock-type 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, 3D-printed devices, or other devices made by personal means.

[[Page 66538]]

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-
type-devices 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Jared Walczak & Scott Drenkard, State and Local Tax 
Rates in 2017, Tax Found. (Jan. 31, 2017), https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-in-2017/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department disagrees that the regulatory analysis did not 
account for the individual cost in purchasing bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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.

[[Page 66539]]

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-
stock-type 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 bump-stock-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 bump-stock-type devices; 
therefore, no regulatory alternative was considered to

[[Page 66540]]

alleviate the regulatory burden on small businesses with respect to 
competition with businesses that are not small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
bump-stock-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-stock-type devices. Another commenter supporting the rule said 
that bump-stock-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.

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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 third-party 
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

[[Page 66542]]

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 third-party 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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 bump-
stock-type devices are machineguns. The Department accordingly 
determined that persons in possession of bump-stock-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    (7%)...........  N/A...........  (7%)..........  N/A...........  (7%)..........  N/A...........  Final Rule.
 (discount rate in parentheses).
                                 (3%)...........  N/A...........  (3%)..........  N/A...........  (3%)..........  N/A...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified Benefits..........  <bullet> Limit access to bump-stock-type devices                                                 Final Rule.
                                 <bullet> Prevents usage of bump-stock-type devices for criminal purposes.
                                 <bullet> Intended to reduce casualties in mass shootings.
                                 <bullet> Intended to help protect first responders when responding to shooting incidents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs       (7%)...........  $35.0 mil.....  (7%)..........  $28.9 mil.....  (7%)..........  $32.0 mil.....  Final Rule.
 (discount rate in parentheses).
                                 (3%)...........  $32.8 mil.....  (3%)..........  $27.6 mil.....  (3%)..........  $31.2 mil.....  Final Rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative costs                <bullet> Potential loss of wages for employees of bump-stock-type device manufacturers           Final Rule.
 (unquantified).
                                 <bullet> Costs of advertising to inform owners of the need to dispose of their bump-stock-type
                                  devices
                                 <bullet> Lost consumer surplus to users of bump-stock-type devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Transfers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers:                 0
 ``on budget''.
                                                0
                                                0                 Final Rule....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?.............                N/A
                                               N/A
                                               N/A                None..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized transfers:                 0
 ``off-budget''.
                                                0
                                                0                 Final Rule....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whom to whom?.............                N/A
                                               N/A
                                               N/A                None..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66544]]


                                                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  None.                                                                                            None.
 tribal governments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Affected populations, costs, and
             Category                             benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.....................  <bullet> Manufacturers of bump-stock-
                                     type devices.
                                    <bullet> Employees of bump-stock-
                                     type device manufacturers.
                                    <bullet> Retail sellers of bump-
                                     stock-type devices.
                                    <bullet> Gun owners who own bump-
                                     stock-type devices or would have
                                     purchased them in the future.
Affected Population...............  <bullet> 1 manufacturer of bump-
                                     stock-type devices.
                                    <bullet> 2,281 retailers of bump-
                                     stock-type devices.
                                    <bullet> Owners and future consumers
                                     of bump-stock-type devices.
Total Quantified Costs to           <bullet> $245.5 million present
 Industry, Public, and Government    value over 10 years.
 (7% Discount Rate).                <bullet> $35.0 million annualized.
Unquantified Costs................  <bullet> Potential loss of wages for
                                     employees of bump-stock-type device
                                     manufacturers.
                                    <bullet> Costs of advertising to
                                     inform owners of the need to
                                     dispose of their bump-stock-type
                                     devices.
                                    <bullet> Lost consumer surplus to
                                     users of bump-stock-type devices.
Unquantified Benefits.............  <bullet> Limits access to bump-stock-
                                     type devices.
                                    <bullet> Prevents usage of bump-
                                     stock-type devices for criminal
                                     purposes.
                                    <bullet> Intended to reduce
                                     casualties in mass shootings.
                                    <bullet> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Description of
            Variables                    NPRM             Final Rule          Difference            Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability...................  N/A...............  Employees of bump-  Adding employees    Per public
                                                       stock-type device   of bump-stock-      comment, ATF
                                                       manufacturers.      type device         included
                                                                           manufacturers.      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-
                                                                                               stock-type
                                                                                               devices to 1.
Government Cost.................  $0................  $1.3 million......  $1.3 million......  Change in policy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66545]]

 
                                                  Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty or ``grandfathering''...  This alternative was rejected because since the passage of  Per public
                                    18 U.S.C. 922(o), amnesty registration of machineguns is   comment.
                                                    not legally permissible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing and background checks.    This alternative was rejected because only Congress can   Per public
                                       add a new class of firearm and impose licensing or      comment.
                                               acquisition requirements on them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remuneration....................    This alternative was rejected because only Congress has   Per public
                                         the authority to offer monetary compensation.         comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical exemption...............   This alternative was rejected because neither the NFA nor  Per public
                                      the GCA provides for medical exemptions to acquire a     comment.
                                       firearm. Only Congress can add medical exemptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future production and sales.....    This alternative was rejected because ATF does not have   Per public
                                    the authority to restrict only the future manufacture or   comment.
                                                sale of bump-stock-type devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quota...........................   This alternative was rejected because ATF lacks authority  Per public
                                        to implement it, as all devices determined to be       comment.
                                          machineguns are prohibited across the board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instituting a tax...............      This alternative was rejected because excise tax is     Per public
                                    regulated by statute and only Congress can determine the   comment.
                                                amount of excise tax on an item
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved security at mass events    This alternative was rejected because improved security   Per public
                                     must be paired with reasonable regulations to increase    comment.
                                             public safety and reduce violent crime
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional legislation.......      This alternative was rejected because ATF has been      Per public
                                    delegated authority to issue rules to implement the NFA    comment.
                                      and GCA. This action will not prevent Congress from
                                            taking action on bump-stock-type devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leave to States to regulate.....     This alternative was rejected because ATF prioritizes    Per public
                                    public safety and preventing crime. This action will not   comment.
                                      prevent States from taking action on bump-stock-type
                                                            devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved law enforcement........      This alternative was rejected because training and      Per public
                                      equipment must be paired with reasonable regulatory      comment.
                                      efforts to increase public safety and reduce violent
                                                             crime
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

<bullet> 1 manufacturer
<bullet> 2,281 retailers
<bullet> An uncertain number of individuals who have purchased bump-
stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Note 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> An estimated 22 employees who were employed by one 
manufacturer, based on public comments \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0002-16668, available 
at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-16668 (last 
visited Nov. 16, 2018).

    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 bump-stock-type devices, nor does ATF keep track or 
maintain a database of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-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-stock-
type 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

[[Page 66546]]

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 bump-stock-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, bump-stock-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 
bump-stock-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 
bump-stock-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 bump-stock-type 
devices in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany 
News (Dec. 22, 2011), http://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One retailer stated that it sold an average of 4,000 to 5,000 bump-
stock-type 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Based on an internal survey of large retailers.
    \19\ Regulations.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).
    \20\ For 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.

<bullet> 4 large * 4,400 annual sales
<bullet> 755 midrange * 60 annual sales
<bullet> 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 
bump-stock-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-stock-type devices sold on the market 
annually could have been 75,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Lucas, supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The high estimate is ATF's primary estimate because ATF knows that 
there

[[Page 66547]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Public comment      Primary
                              Year                                 Low estimate      estimate        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 bump-stock-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 bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Slide 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).
    \23\ Bump Fire Systems (archived page on Feb. 21, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20150221050223/http://bumpfiresystems.com/ 
(last visited Nov. 28, 2018).

                                Table 5--Amount Spent on Bump-Stock-Type Devices
                                                 [Undiscounted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Midrange
                              Year                                 Low estimate      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 bump-
stock-type devices was $102.5 million. While the retail prices of these 
bump-stock-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.

[[Page 66548]]



              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 bump-stock-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 
bump-stock-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Cal. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of bump-
              Year                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

[[Page 66549]]

 
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 bump-stock-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:

    <bullet> Large retailer: $35,000;
    <bullet> midrange retailer: $4,500; and
    <bullet> small retailer: $74.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Midrange: $4,500 = ($18,000/$140,000) * $35,000. Small: $74 
= (8/3,800) * $35,000.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ BLS 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 9--Wage Series To Destroy Existing Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Unloaded wage    Loaded wage
           Wage series                 Series code           rate            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.

[[Page 66550]]

 
Building Cleaning Workers, All     37-2019............           14.88           21.34  https://www.bls.gov/oes/
 Other.                                                                                  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Incremental                     Opportunity
                           Population                                  cost       Hourly  burden   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:

<bullet> Individual: $1.3 million = (1.8 million * 75%)
<bullet> Retailer (Large): 3 retailers * $699.95 opportunity cost of 
time + ($35,000 inventory * 75%)
<bullet> Retailer (Midrange): 569 retailers * $7.58 opportunity cost 
of time + ($4,500 inventory * 75%)
<bullet> 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-stock-type 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:

<bullet> Individual: 520,000 bump-stock-type devices * 25% * $24.98
<bullet> Retailer (Large): (1 retailer * $24.98 travel cost) + 
($35,000 inventory * 25%)
<bullet> Retailer (Midrange): (190 retailers *$24.98 travel cost) + 
($4,500 inventory * 25%)
<bullet> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 66551]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2018-GS, 
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2018/GS_h.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 first-year cost to destroy all existing bump-stock-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-stock-type 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 bump-stock-type device. A 
ban also could result in less danger to first responders when 
responding to incidents, because it prevents shooters from using 
devices that allow them to shoot semiautomatic firearms automatically.

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 bump-stock-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

[[Page 66552]]

prevent States from taking action on bump-stock-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:

    <bullet> It is estimated that the remaining manufacturer will go 
out of business;
    <bullet> There are 2,281 retailers, of which most are estimated 
to be small;
    <bullet> 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:

    <bullet> A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the 
rule;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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-for-profit 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

[[Page 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 bump-stock-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:

    <bullet> There is 1 manufacturer who is likely to be a small 
entity;
    <bullet> There are 2,270 retailers who are likely to be small 
entities;
    <bullet> There are no government jurisdictions affected by this 
final rule; and
    <bullet> 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

0
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).


0
2. In Sec.  447.11, revise the definition of ``Machinegun'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 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 ``machinegun'' includes a bump-stock-type 
device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot 
more than one shot

[[Page 66554]]

with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of 
the semi-automatic 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

0
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).

0
4. In Sec.  478.11, revise the definition of ``Machine gun'' by adding 
two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:


Sec.  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 semi-automatic 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

0
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.


0
6. In Sec.  479.11, revise the definition of ``Machine gun'' by adding 
two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:


Sec.  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 semi-automatic 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