Some might even say that government and criminals are part of the same group.And what the government has. Government always exempts itself.
Some might even say that government and criminals are part of the same group.And what the government has. Government always exempts itself.
No, it will encourage panic buying. People panic buy when they are convinced that the item will soon not be available. Phase I is to panic buy in the window while the item is still legally available, and then Phase II is when the buyers don't destroy it or turn it in. The question presupposes that all people are scrupulously law abiding. That's clearly not the case when it comes to guns.I wonder if this deters future panic buying knowing you may pay 400 for a 100 item you later have to destroy with no compensation
A more fruitful ground will be that it's an unconstitutional "taking" without compensation. Judges are more attuned to the 5th Amendment than to the 2nd Amendment anyway. Even the ACLU will support the 5th Amendment while probably not the 2nd.
One of the reasons why the "taking" argument has added weight is that bump stock owners bought the devices in good faith,"detrimentally relying" on the prior rulings of the ATF that they were legal. Now they're being penalized by that same agency, in a classic example of "bad faith."
There are cases that have held that if an item is made useless for its intended purpose, because of government regulation, that's tantamount to a "taking." This is precisely the issue that will have to be thrashed out in the courts.One of those government lawyers might argue that they aren't "taking" anything for "public use."
The relevant line in the 5th says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
They don't want it, they are just saying you can't keep it, not in working condition, anyhow.
Also the Vegas shooter had enough time and resources where he could have easily purchased legal full auto weapons to carry out his attacks.
How does the ATF know who owns bump stocks? Did they force retailers to hand over customer lists?
If the lawsuits are going to go anywhere there will likely be an injunction of some sort issued preventing the rule from taking effect until after the trial ruling. So yes if you have one then don't chop it up just yet. The clock isn't even ticking yet because the rule hasn't been officially published.I guess if anyone has one and intends to follow the law re: destruction, they should wait until the last day to see if there are any last minute appeals granted.
I had to check them all out. I did not know there were so may different ways to accomplish this action available for purchase.
The law is completely f$&@“ing useless.
Imagine the reaction if the object that has to be destroyed were different; cell phones, vehicles that don't meet emissions standards, tobacco products, prescription opiates............
More Humans are killed by cars, where do I find the red line diagram to cut up a Buick Lucerne?