Quantcast

Bump Stocks not being turned in.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Jack B., Apr 16, 2019.

  1. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    713
    ''A bumpstock has no such alternate utility. It's only purpose...''
    And, lets not forget that the bumpstock design has a lever that locks the stock...making it just like any other stock as non-moving

    It was NEVER proven in the most delcarative arena allowed within our nation, COURT, that dude used the stock. I will not write it all again. Here...

    Here's FACTS, decided in ....COURT...

    https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/gun-owners-of-america-day-court-bump-stocks/

    re: ''
    GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime. Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter. This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point.


    Thus, the oral arguments in the Western district federal court on March 6 established unrebutted testimony that, to date, there is no proof of any documented case where a bump stock was used in a crime.
    ''
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    HuckFinn, Texas10mm and SharpDog like this.
  2. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    713
    :thumbup:
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  3. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,683
    Location:
    Northern KY
    I have ears. Before even the very first minute of audio I heard on the night of the shooting was over I thought it was a bump stock based on the inconsistent shot rhythm alone.

    Look, I'm not for the bump stock ban, or any other kind of ban, but this is a pretty weak thing to have an argument about. And the statements you quoted are not facts just because they happened in a courtroom. They are reports from one side of an argument that are stated in such a way as to maximize that side's case. Finally, just because the government lawyer didn't respond that doesn't mean anything. A lack of response doesn't equal conclusive proof of anything.

    Besides, it's a moot point to argue this. We now have a ban regardless of whether bump stocks were used in the Las Vegas shooting.
     
    BSA1 likes this.
  4. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    8,038
    My old neighborhood had a monthly average of 6 assaults, 6 robberies and 1 rape within one mile of my house, in 2015 when I checked, and I have zero doubt that it's much worse now, the latest trend before I left was stabbings at 7-Elevens, with homeless as either perpetrators, victims, or both. Carry permits are not issued to regular people in Los Angeles County. The neighborhood got together and hired paid armed security to drive around etc, but legally those guys can only deal with something happening on a property for which they are contracted. IOW if they see an assault taking place in the middle of the street, or on a non-contracted property, they are not allowed to act. I hear from friends there that a huge percentage of people are just carrying without a permit.
     
  5. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    TX
    Not a good idea to talk about illegal activity. Use some common sense.
     
    Styx and alsaqr like this.
  6. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Can a bump-stock be DEWAT?
     
  7. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    "Can a bump-stock be DEWAT"

    One line summary supposedy based on reliable sources: "The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy them or surrender them to ATF, punishable by 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine."

    Would "deactivated" (handgrip solid behind the triggerguard, moving parts JB Welded and dead pinned, til it would have to cut to be reactivated with new parts) count as "destroyed" as a bumpstock?

    I don't know. It might be worth an inquiry to the ATF Firearms Technology Branch.

    I suspect destruction here is literally destroyed not deactivated.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  8. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,342
    Location:
    CAAZ
  9. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV

    Which means there is no direct physical proof, only circumstantial evidence.
    Also, I would argue this is factually incorrect as we have the LVMPD's report with the weapons they collected, how they were equipped and the approximate number of rounds they fired. You can read the evidence collected starting on page 96 and continuing through page 107. On pages 106 and 107, they list which guns were fired and you can see that a number of the bump stock-equipped rifles were indeed fired.
    Fact: Stephen Paddock fired bump stock-equipped firearms during his murderous rampage that killed 58 people.
    https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf
    Read it for yourself.

    You also didn't mention that the GOA lost in that particular court.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  10. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    i give two hoots in hades what the ammo land article says or what someone testified to in court.

    Fact is the Las Vegas PD confiscated numerous AR-15 rifles wearing bump stocks. They matched those bump stock wearing AR-15 rifles to cartridge cases found in the shooters room.

    Anyway, GOA lost this one and bump stocks are a goner.

    As for setting a precedent for confiscation of firearms or firearms related stuff; that precedent was set with the Bush I administrations ban on import of semi-auto milsurp weapons under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    Clean97GTI likes this.
  11. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,366
    Location:
    Virginia
    The DEWAT (DEactivated WAr Trophy) program was pre-GCA '68, and allowed surplus WW2 machine guns to be welded up (sometimes minimally) and to be sold as non-guns. If DEWATs were not registered during the 1968 amnesty, they became contraband. Today, the remaining registered DEWATs can be reactivated into regular transferable machine guns. No new ones can be created.
     
  12. ponchh

    ponchh Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Alexander AR
    When a drunk driver puts said gas in their car, is it the fault of the gas when the drunk driver kills somebody, or should all responsibility fall to the driver.
    Depriving law abiding citizens, because of the bad acts of a few, isn't a logical approach. If that were the case, alcoholic beverages would be against the law. Cell phones because of texting while driving, would be confiscated.
    Murder and mass shootings are a city dweller problem, maybe they should investigate why the inner-city mind is so prone to killing for the sake of killing.
    When drunk drivers and texters get the same attention as bump stocks, I might believe they actually have a genuine concern, instead of an agenda to disarm Americans through a thousand cuts.
     
    Texas10mm likes this.
  13. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    So we'll get the obvious out of the way. Banning bump stocks does not in any way, infringe your right to own a gun. You can purchase any number of firearms that will function perfectly with any size magazines that will fit. It doesn't change the purchase requirements for firearms or which firearms you can buy.

    I would also argue that depriving law abiding citizens of the ability to own certain items, happens all the time. We don't think anything of it when it's a dangerous chemical that can only be shipped to a laboratory that carries appropriate licensing. You'll have a hard time buying something like cyanide if you aren't shipping it to a lab. It is a logical approach, because it limits the chances of contact between whatever thing you're trying to control and people. In the case of bump stocks, we can see that while many people use them without incident but when used against people, they increase the effective rate of fire considerably.
    What kind of attention would you want to see against drunk drivers and people who text? It's already illegal in every state to drive drunk and many states and cities have hands-free laws. If you hurt or kill someone when you're drunk or distracted, judges throw the book at you and rightfully so. But again, a bump stock has a different primary purpose than a gallon of gas, a beer or a cell phone.
    And like I said before, banning bump stocks doesn't do anything to your ability to buy an AR-15 or AK pattern rifle. In what way does that disarm you?
     
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,366
    Location:
    Virginia
    It's easy to see how a future antigun Administration could use the exact same procedure that was used to ban bump stocks, to ban semiautomatic rifles in general, and AR's in particular. When objections were raised, they could just point to Trump.
     
    Texas10mm and P5 Guy like this.
  15. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    They'd be far more likely to cite Heller and claim that Scalia's opinion makes such legislation not only defensible but also already a part of case law.
    "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    I think you'd have a real issue trying to use that same bump stock justification to ban any semi-auto gun seeing as a host of states explicitly guarantee the right to bear arms for legal purposes. Bump stocks are not required for the functioning of a weapon. They are not a key component. They don't change the operation of the semiauto firearm.
    -edit- and I'm pretty liberal and don't think the ATF's bump stock ban will fly. If memory serves, the question came up during the Obama administration and the ATF basically said that the way machine guns are defined, a bump stock couldn't be prohibited. The law would have to change or a new law passed.
     
  16. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,366
    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm not talking about legislation. The real danger of the bump stock ban, as precedent, is that it was done administratively with no input from Congress.
    That's water under the bridge. The new regulation overruled the previous ATF rulings. All without legislation. So if semiautomatic AR's come to be banned administratively, it won't matter that the ATF has ruled consistently since the early 1960's that they are not machine guns. They'll just be held now to be "readily convertible" and that will be the end of that.
     
  17. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,342
    Location:
    CAAZ
    And this basically changes the definition of a machine gun to include items that help to increase the firing rate.

    Oh... and so does a better trigger... and a different stock could be argued the same as well.... oh better Optics can help too.

    See where this is going?
     
    Texas10mm likes this.
  18. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Except that a machinegun isn't defined by an ATF rule. It's defined by law, which is why the ATF said a few years ago, that they couldn't create a rule about bump stocks because of the definition of a machine gun.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...6-subtitleE-chap53-subchapB-partI-sec5845.htm

    (b) Machinegun
    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. 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.

    This ruling doesn't change it based on rate of fire. It can't, because the definition of a machine gun is law.
     
  19. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    You're going off the deep end a bit for the simple reason that the things you're talking about, are not the result of an ATF ruling. The definition of a machine gun isn't an ATF rule, it's a law. That's why I don't see the ban as sticking around if a solid case makes its way up the circuits.
    Claiming the ATF is going to outlaw a certain type of rifle that wasn't illegal, by creating a rule is not going to fly because of the direct protections of firearms ownership provided by state constitutions and federal constitution.
     
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,366
    Location:
    Virginia
    There is enough ambiguity in the words I have highlighted in bold so that they can be "clarified" by ATF regulations and rulings. This is exactly what we saw in the bump stock affair. The reality is that the ATF has broad authority to broaden (or restrict) the definition considerably. They are normally hesitant to do so, but will if they are directly ordered (as Trump did with bump stocks).
     
    danez71 likes this.
  21. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    A bump stock isn't protected by the 2nd amendment or any other equivalents in state constitutions. Guns are.
    The ATF might make such a ruling, but I seriously doubt it would go anywhere. I don't think the current ATF ruling on bump stocks will stand once a case comes up through the courts on the matter.
     
  22. Styx

    Styx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    524
    LOL... They are done for. I seriously doubt SCOTUS will take up any cases on the matter.

    The truth is, the text of the law does not matter as much as the poltical ideology of politicians and judges. They simply will concoct a way to interpret the law to mean what they want it to mean (the ATF included).
     
    GEM likes this.
  23. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,342
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Except... read post 120 and 122 and then tell us that none of this is happening or that SCOTUS will reverse it anyways even there is no indication they will.
     
    Styx likes this.
  24. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,683
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Fine. Go get a bump stock and wave it around outside the nearest ATF office. Take video.

    You’re illustrating our point. What they have done is clearly outside the law, and yet no court has been willing to say so. It’s a terrible travesty of the rule of plain law, but you will go to jail just the same...and SCOTUS will probably choose not to hear your case.
     
    danez71 and GEM like this.
  25. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    So, if the slippery slope is such a problem, why hasn't the ATF simply been ordered to ban all semi-auto rifles? Surely HW Bush or Clinton or Obama would have done so, right? Why didn't they?

    Couldn't be that they knew full well that such a ban would get tossed out of court as a 2nd Amendment violation in a heartbeat, could it? Well, Obama would have known that. Before 2008, the SCOTUS still had some sensibility in its rulings on gun rights.

    What the ATF has done is outside the law, but it generally requires an actual case to get it overturned, not just a lawsuit with really poor lawyering from the GOA.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice