Bump Stocks Banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious - has there been another case in recent history in which the US government retroactively declared a previously-legal object to be illegal and ordered its destruction / confiscation / turn-in?
Click to expand...

Yes. In the 1980s you could buy an “autosear” to install in your AR to make it selective fire. Of course, if you actually installed the part you had a machinegun and would need to register it. But you could legally own the part. Then the BATF decided that wasn’t right, and after a certain date all “autosears” were considered a machinegun and even had a serial number. This pretty much killed the market. IIRC all previously sold “autosears” were illegal to own too.

Then of course there was the California ban on “assault rifles”, but that wasn’t the US government.


.
 
Stand by for binary triggers, response triggers, trigger cranks, gatling guns, et. al. to be reclassified retroactively as machine guns.

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.
Click to expand...
 
I'm totally ok with this. Although I have absolutely zero interest in owning one myself, I can understand how some people might find them fun to shoot. Perhaps they should only be able to be rented at a gun range, or some other very tight restriction for those that want to use one.

And yes, I understand that it's a slippery slope, and some of us will say "I don't want the government telling me what I can and cannot do/own." The reality is that the government essentially dictates most every aspect of our life - the food we eat, the cars we drive, the air we breathe, our schools, workplace, taxes... the list is nearly endless. It's just that firearms are a touchy subject for some of us, and the reality is that those that get upset about this ban are a fringe group of a somewhat fringe group.

Perhaps a happy medium would be that owning one is legal, but it must be shipped to and stored at a range/facility at all times, and can only be used there. Kind of like owning a Formula 1 style race car. Maybe I can own one, but I sure can't drive it to the store on a Sunday morning.

Sometimes it's ok to give a little for the greater good. Those of us that are happily married know this... ;)
 
This is about understanding the law and what can be done by the government. This is about what power they currently have and not necessarily about some overreach that needs to be challenged at the Supreme Court.

For example, my son is studying constitutional law and hopes one day to be a Supreme Court Justice. He was commenting on a recent event in Utah where a proposition passed that would allow for the legalization of marijuana for medical use. (I am not changing the subject so please no one comment on this incident, just consider the example) After the proposition passed the Utah Legislature immediately went to work changing it. People cried foul. They did not understand that that is how Utah law works and that it was legal and should have been expected. Back to topic. This is about many waking up and realizing that this could happen and that it may be perfectly legal.

Now, if the slippery slope becomes "any component that makes up a machine gun" can then be banned because it is one step closer to a machine gun, then suddenly auto-loaders, magazines, etc., all become a concern.

If the slippery slope is that a machine gun is defined by a rate of fire and not by physical and mechanical characteristics then they might just ban my son's finger because of all of those video games he plays he can really get that thing "a goin'".

I am just curious to the human reaction. Those that loved Trump may not now. Those that tolerated him may not now.

And for those that say, "Never owned one, don't like them anyway", well that is nice. That is how they divided the people in Australia. I don't own any polymer pistols, so by all means let's get rid of those, they are using components that are harmful to the environment, and they are just plain ugly.

So, the power and the law exists. I hope it will face a legal challenge but I doubt it. Where do we go from here?
 
Last edited:
Pop your popcorn, donate to the lawsuit. FWIW, I expect that suit to be more of a 4th Amendment takings case and an ex post facto law case than a 2A suit. Plus the not-so-minor issue of the words of Federal law that define "machine gun".

No, I don't own a bump stock. But the lawsuit will establish precedents...and some of those may work greatly to our advantage.
 
pdsmith505 said:
What reimbursement? Our dear leaders have determined that bump stocks are noxious items, and their prohibition does not count as a "taking".
Click to expand...
Which will be one line of argument in the lawsuit. The manufacturers designed a product that worked around the definition of "machine gun" in Federal law, submitted their product to ATF to ensure that it was legal, and sold them in good faith. For DOJ to reverse ATF by fiat arguably constitutes an ex post facto law (prohibited by the Constitution). The situation is worsened by the 'solution' of uncompensated seizure.
 
Mike OTDP said:
Pop your popcorn, donate to the lawsuit. FWIW, I expect that suit to be more of a 4th Amendment takings case and an ex post facto law case than a 2A suit.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 9, clause 3.

Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

A bill of attainder is a law that simply declares, by legislative fiat, that certain people are guilty of a crime and then imposes some kind of punishment upon them. In other words, it's a way for a legislature to act like judge and jury, convicting and punishing people without benefit of trial. Bills of attainder used to be used occasionally by the British Parliament; the American Founding Fathers viewed them as terrible violations of liberty and banned them from the United States.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively criminalizes a certain act after it has already been committed. In other words, it would allow a person to be prosecuted for doing something that wasn't actually illegal yet at the time they did it. The framers of the Constitution viewed ex post facto laws, like bills of attainder, as blatant abuses of power and banned them.
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't seem too far of a stretch for our 'public servants' to ban semi-auto's after this tyranny that has occurred. I mean a semi-auto allows for faster firing then say a bolt action. Isn't a semi-auto in direct conflict with the 'spirit of the law' as well?

It sickens me that manufacturers can follow the letter of the law and we still can be stripped of our rights. This whole notion of 'spirit of the law' is reminiscent of what comes out the south side of a north bound rhino.

It'll be really convenient to give cover for losing our rights because we neglected to consider the spirit of the law in our endeavors. And it'll be conveniently used to strip even more of our rights away.

But hey why do I care, I don't own a bumpstock and never will? Looks like we have a bunch of gun owners who don't want to defend the front lines of 2A erosion in this country.
 
Last edited:
Keith G said:
Sometimes it's ok to give a little for the greater good.
Click to expand...
And what greater good would that be?

Keith G said:
the reality is that those that get upset about this ban are a fringe group of a somewhat fringe group.
Click to expand...
You mean gun owners? Those of us that have seen enough of the one sided, we give you this and get nothing in return compromise are not "fringe". Those of us who are tired of being pushed around and talked down to by those that who think they know what is best for us as if we are children are not the "fringe". I've seen enough compromise to know that it's just a fancy word for losing.

Again, who's side are some of you on?
 
<*(((>< said:
Doesn't seem too far of a stretch for our 'public servants' to ban semi-auto's after this tyranny that has occurred. I mean a semi-auto allows for faster firing then say a bolt action. Isn't a semi-auto in direct conflict with the 'spirit of the law' as well?

It sickens me that manufacturers can follow the letter of the law and we still can be stripped of our rights. This whole notion of 'spirit of the law' is reminiscent of what comes out the south side of a north bound rhino.

It'll be really convenient to give cover for losing our rights because we neglected to consider the spirit of the law in our endeavors. And it'll be conveniently used to strip even more of our rights away.

But hey why do I care, I don't own a bumpstock and never will? Looks like we have a bunch of gun owners who don't want to defend the front lines of 2A erosion in this country.
Click to expand...

Where were ya'll when the NFA was started?? And where again, when the assault rifle ban happened??

Make a bunch of weird machine guns, make gun owners look bad, completely screw all of us. Does this not perfectly fit: ''Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.''? Some responsibility needs to fall on the manufacturer,and the owners. You knew this was wrong.

It's a stretch, but maybe that famous bumpstop saved us from another assault weapons ban. It could have just been a plain AR spraying down that crowd just as well.
 
Well, lets see when the NFA was started, I was 48 years from being born, and the assault weapons ban happened I was 12 years old, thought it was stupid then even at that young age. It was compromise that brought about all these gun laws, but we have ground to stand on though...:uhoh:

Why do we have written laws to be followed and then superseded by the government because of their obtuseness?

Bumpstocks are not machine guns, one pull, one bullet. I'm not going to engage in a battle to the bottom with you. I've said my peace as I have in other threads and was told that I won't have any ground to stand on unless I/we compromise. Well, I guess I'll have to learn to levitate as I'm not compromising.
 
Last edited:
Zerodefect said:
Where were ya'll when the NFA was started?? And where again, when the assault rifle ban happened??

Make a bunch of weird machine guns, make gun owners look bad, completely screw all of us. Does this not perfectly fit: ''Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.''? Some responsibility needs to fall on the manufacturer,and the owners. You knew this was wrong.

It's a stretch, but maybe that famous bumpstop saved us from another assault weapons ban. It could have just been a plain AR spraying down that crowd just as well.
Click to expand...

So tell me something, why should I as a law abiding citizen LOSE the right to own a bump stock?
 
This still hasn't been published in the Federal Register. They're saying it's going to be published "in a few days." Until it's officially published, it can still be changed.

All the commentaries -- all across the political spectrum -- are saying that lawsuits challenging the ban are expected, since this is on very shaky legal ground. Even Sen. Feinstein has said that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Report: President Trump Signing Bump Stock Ban, Citizens Have 90 Days to Turn Them
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
D
  • Locked
Surprise! It's NOT Just Bump Stocks (Ban Announcement)...
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
Kevin5098
  • Locked
White House Petition to Reverse Bump Stock Ban
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
John_R
John_R
D
  • Locked
Saturday 3-10-18, Justice Dept Just Made Next Move to BAN Bump Stocks
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
DoubleMag
D
A
Federal Appeals Court (6th Circuit) declares ATF’S Bump Stock Ban to be ILLEGAL.
Replies
4
Views
565
jmorris
jmorris
Back
Top