Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks

[Raoul]

8 hours ago, Omega said:

While I do NOT support this, and have voiced my concern to my Reps, it's not as bad as you make it out to be.  While he may have initiated this, and arguably it maybe was the lesser of two evils, this is not quite over, lawsuits have been filed, and more are in the wings.  And though he may not be as much a supporter of the 2A as he should be, I don't think Obama can be held as the standard bearer for the 2A.

I do love an optimist....

[mikegideon]

8 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Nothing will happen. The NRA has agreed to bend over and take it. His base isn't going to vote for someone else as you alluded to in your post. 

Nothing? Second one I've seen today...

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm

[Erik88]

15 minutes ago, mikegideon said:

Nothing? Second one I've seen today...

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-file-bump-stock-suit.htm

I already posted about that. I thought you were implying earlier Trump was going to have a change of heart when you said "let's see what happens when he figures out he screwed up". Trump doesn't ever admit he's wrong. That's not about to change now. 

But I'm glad to see the GOA and others challenging this.

 

 

[Grayfox54]

Settle down folks. I'm against this as much as you are. However, the lawsuits will get an injunction to prevent enactment of this ruling and I believe it will eventually be declared illegal/unconstitutional by the courts. So everybody looks like they tried to do something. But in the end, nothing changes. A typical Washington dog and pony show. 

I suspect it may have been planned that way on purpose. 

[mikegideon]

5 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I already posted about that. I thought you were implying earlier Trump was going to have a change of heart when you said "let's see what happens when he figures out he screwed up". Trump doesn't ever admit he's wrong. That's not about to change now. 

But I'm glad to see the GOA and others challenging this.

 

 

We will just have to see how it shakes out. I don’t think he realizes who he pissed off. 

[DaveTN]

To win a lawsuit it’s probably going to have to be over authority to do what they have done. If banning bump stocks is unconstitutional; so is banning machine guns.

If they want to ban anything it needs to be done by Congress; not the BATF.

Bump stocks violate the intent of the law; not the letter of the law. If they wanted bump stocks to be illegal they should have amended the law. They may get by with doing it with a court ruling. I may be wrong, but I wouldn’t think a court would be bound by an ATF ruling on whether something is legal or not.

If this goes to Congress to change the law: we may be in trouble on all aftermarket triggers.

[Whisper]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

To win a lawsuit it’s probably going to have to be over authority to do what they have done. If banning bump stocks is unconstitutional; so is banning machine guns.

Banning bump stocks the way the administration did it is probably unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment, not the Second.  The government can't legally steal personal property; if they take away something you own, they have to pay you for it.

[Ronald_55]

17 minutes ago, Whisper said:

Banning bump stocks the way the administration did it is probably unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment, not the Second.  The government can't legally steal personal property; if they take away something you own, they have to pay you for it.

That does not mean they have to pay you a fair price.....if it came down to it, they would screw everyone by saying something like "We will give you $20". Then they have "compensated" you. 

[E4 No More]

31 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:

That does not mean they have to pay you a fair price.....if it came down to it, they would screw everyone by saying something like "We will give you $20". Then they have "compensated" you. 

I believe that wouldn't fly, and that they have to pay fair market value just like they must do when they take your property under eminent domain.

[owejia]

Government has been stealing from citizens since the beginning of government in the form of taxes. If congress ever figures out all they have to do is call it a tax we are hosed big time. This will be in the courts for awhile, we will see if the 5th amendment  means anything or not, may not mean any more than the pesky part of "shall not be infringed" means now. 

[Whisper]

1 hour ago, Ronald_55 said:

That does not mean they have to pay you a fair price.....if it came down to it, they would screw everyone by saying something like "We will give you $20". Then they have "compensated" you. 

In fact, the Fifth Amendment does say clearly and specifically that you must be paid a fair price.  The actual wording is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Ronald_55]

26 minutes ago, Whisper said:

In fact, the Fifth Amendment does say clearly and specifically that you must be paid a fair price.  The actual wording is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"just" is highly subjective when politicians get involved. Remember logic is not something they recognize.....

This is exactly why I backed off buying one of these. Too many variables that could bite me. My budget is small, so losing part or all if it due to this is not viable. 

[mikegideon]

37 minutes ago, Whisper said:

In fact, the Fifth Amendment does say clearly and specifically that you must be paid a fair price.  The actual wording is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Yep. They gotta buy them back, or grandfather them. Gonna be interesting to watch.

[mikegideon]

1 minute ago, Ronald_55 said:

"just" is highly subjective when politicians get involved. Remember logic is not something they recognize.....

This is exactly why I backed off buying one of these. Too many variables that could bite me. My budget is small, so losing part or all if it due to this is not viable. 

No longer just politicians. It's headed to the courts.

[Ronald_55]

1 minute ago, mikegideon said:

No longer just politicians. It's headed to the courts.

Unfortunately politics still plays out there too...

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Ronald_55 said:

Unfortunately politics still plays out there too...

Yeah. Just harder to do there.

[MacGyver]

4 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Yep. They gotta buy them back, or grandfather them. Gonna be interesting to watch.

They're not going to take them - as such they're not going to compensate anyone.

They're just going to declare them illegal and future possession will be considered criminal.

It should go to the courts - but the courts have spoken on this a long time ago.  Wonder what else they might apply it to?

[Garufa]

6 hours ago, Whisper said:

In fact, the Fifth Amendment does say clearly and specifically that you must be paid a fair price.  The actual wording is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I am by no means a constitutional scholar nor do I know the history of how the fifth has been applied to these types of situations but the key word is “use”.  Bump stocks are not being appropriated for the “public use”, they want them destroyed.

The only people who are going to get compsensated are the lawyers who are hired to fight it.  Even if some resolution is agreed upon, the owners of bump stocks will receive pennies on the dollar if even that.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Garufa

[Grayfox54]

I wonder how many millions it would cost to properly destroy a few thousand bump stocks?  

[xsubsailor]

4 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

I wonder how many millions it would cost to properly destroy a few thousand bump stocks?  

 I've heard the easiest way to get rich is to get a government contract. Maybe we should look into this 

[Whisper]

15 hours ago, Garufa said:

I am by no means a constitutional scholar nor do I know the history of how the fifth has been applied to these types of situations but the key word is “use”.  Bump stocks are not being appropriated for the “public use”, they want them destroyed.

The directive says the stocks must be destroyed or turned over to the government.  Even if the government plans to destroy the stocks, that is still a "use."  When the government takes land from owners (one of the primary types of cases for which you usually see Fifth Amendment lawsuits), even if the government is going to turn the land over to a developer, that's still a "use."  I expect the BATFE will try various lame arguments for not paying for the confiscated property, but claiming that destruction is not a "use" will not be one of their tactics.

[E4 No More]

I think they'll see how many people turn them in for free first and then do some sort of buy-back. I have no dog in this fight but think of the poor schmuck that owns one and doesn't keep up with the news. One day he finds out the hard way that he's been declared a criminal for doing nothing wrong.

[Capbyrd]

I wonder if anyone will try to mod it so that it can't slide. 

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

I wonder if anyone will try to mod it so that it can't slide. 

They might, but if it doesn't function then why bother, it's just a crappy stock then.

[Capbyrd]

20 minutes ago, Omega said:

They might, but if it doesn't function then why bother, it's just a crappy stock then.

Better than turning it in or destroying it.