What happens after a ban on certain guns or gun parts?

[Darth-Vang]

So my brother wanted to buy a binary trigger for his AR-15, he wanted to buy the one with the reset trigger but he changed his mind to get the other one due his fear of the ATF potentially banning it in the future. So my thought was that even if the ATF does ban it in the future wouldn’t he be able to keep it since he bought way before the ban took effect? Or am I missing something here? I remember reading about the “grandfather” clause. If you bought a full automatic before the ban took affect it was yours and since you already legally possessed it before the ban took place everything should be okay? Or am I missing something here?

 

[mcb]

There is no guarantee new restrictions will have a grandfather clause written into them. That said I have never let laws that are not yet on the book effect my decisions, firearms or otherwise. I will deal with those only after they are officially a law.

 

[Speedo66]

So my brother wanted to buy a binary trigger for his AR-15, he wanted to buy the one with the reset trigger but he changed his mind to get the other one due his fear of the ATF potentially banning it in the future. So my thought was that even if the ATF does ban it in the future wouldn’t he be able to keep it since he bought way before the ban took effect? Or am I missing something here? I remember reading about the “grandfather” clause. If you bought a full automatic before the ban took affect it was yours and since you already legally possessed it before the ban took place everything should be okay? Or am I missing something here?

Not sure about Federal law, but when states pass restrictive laws, they often ban possession, or require registration for those parts or weapons still in purchaser's hands. They also occasionally give time for possessors to get rid of the offending parts out of state.

Examples would be "assault" weapons and so called "large capacity" magazines.

What the Feds would do is anybody's guess.

 

[edwardware]

So my thought was that even if the ATF does ban it in the future wouldn’t he be able to keep it since he bought way before the ban took effect?

So, you're worried that Big Brother might stomp his boot in your face, but you figure he surely wouldn't take your trigger away because that wouldn't be fair play?

I'd suggest a rethink. Start with the premise that your enemy will harm you in any way he is able to, with absolutely no restraint whatsoever.

 

[Spats McGee]

As noted, there's no guarantee that future laws will contain grandfather clauses, but then again, there's no guarantee that such laws will be passed.

 

[jmorris]

If we look at past decisions in this area like the Akins accelerator, AW-Sim and bump stocks, all became illegal. Under Clinton’s AWB, existing equipment was grandfathered.

As far as the surrendering of newly illegal devices, you might be interested in this.

https://apnews.com/article/8a6f79bd2314d52aa33161fdd93379e5

 

[dogtown tom]

If we look at past decisions in this area like the Akins accelerator....

I believe changes were made to the Akins device after ATF approval, and they deemed it no longer met their earlier approval.

 

[GEM]

In the analyses of the past AWB, it was found that it had little effect on crime indices. The researchers said that one reason was that there was sufficient grandfathered guns and mags to meet demand for criminal usage.

Also, new guns without the cosmetic features that were banned had equal lethal efficacy, rendering the AWB useless.

Thus proponents of new bans who pay attention to these findings want to:

1. Ban all semis
2. Confiscate all existing semis and higher capacity magazines
3. NO grandfathering

The odds of this happening are low despite rhetoric in favor of such from Biden and Beto types. Of course, we await the Olympian decision of the Golden Scotus justices to wipe out existing and preclude future weapons type bans.

 

[CapnMac]

The problem here is that laws are not speculative.
And we cannot divine the future.

The Fed AWB had a "sunset clause" in it due to political pressure. Sunset clauses are a very uncommon part of legislation.

Now, that's also for things enacted under US Code. Details created by regulating agencies under the Code of Federal Regulations are structured differently.

So, a person cannot infer how one thing might be done from how quite another happened.

 

[RickD427]

Captain Mac is right on point, you can't accurately predict the future.

We can look at the history, and more better to look at the trends in history, to see where things are likely going, but never underestimate the ability of the political process to surprise.

In many past cases where articles were banned, the law(s) banning them commonly included "Grandfather" provisions the exempted similar articles already in possession. That solved the issue of how deal with the prohibited articles already in circulation and it complied with the then-existing view that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause would require compensation.

But in recent years, the Takings Clause has taken a beating in court. The case law is not yet fully settled, but there is a developing theme that the Takings Clause only governs articles that are taken for "pubic use."

Additionally, in the case of firearms, there is a lot of public pressure to remove certain classes of weapons from the public. But these two factors together and you're less likely to see "Grandfathering" provisions in new legislation.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

How many folks disposed of their bump stocks? I bet not many................

 

[mcb]

How many folks disposed of their bump stocks? I bet not many................

I would bet there is a fairly large percentage of bump stock owners that do not even realize their bumpstocks are now considered an NFA item.

 

[herrwalther]

There is no guarantee new restrictions will have a grandfather clause written into them. That said I have never let laws that are not yet on the book effect my decisions, firearms or otherwise. I will deal with those only after they are officially a law.

Yup. Two distinctions I can remember are the Federal Assault Weapon ban of 1994. This law, signed by Clinton, did include a grandfather clause. It also included a sunset clause and expired in 2004. The bumpstock ban, signed by Trump in 2019 did not include a grandfather clause. The ATF determined that all bumpstocks in circulation were to be destroyed. Although I think a very small percentage of owners read and followed through with that memo.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

As a boss of mine once said when someone asked him about something we were troubleshooting:

"We'll know what we know when we know it."

This applies to laws which have yet to be written...we won't know until it's actually written, passed, and is actually on it's way to being signed into law. That's where the final wording of any bill lies, and it becomes law when it's signed (but may actually go into effect at a later date, depending on how the bill was written).

In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Up until the moment it's passed, everything in a bill is subject to change.

 

[Darth-Vang]

I appreciate all the replies yall. Know I know for certain how things work concerning legalities-wise. Thank you.

 

[loadedround]

Remember Chicken Little and the "the sky is falling''! Why worry what can happen in the future affect you in the present.

 

[jmorris]

I believe changes were made to the Akins device after ATF approval, and they deemed it no longer met their earlier approval.

I was under the impression the springs were removed after they changed their mind and other products like the AW-SIM had come out.

 

[dogtown tom]

I was under the impression the springs were removed after they changed their mind and other products like the AW-SIM had come out.

I read that what Akins submitted to ATF (and was determined not to be a MG) was not the same device he actually manufactured and sold. That's not ATF's fault, but sheer stupidity on the part of Akins.
Pretty much the reason he had to buy them all back.

 

[jmorris]

Had Akins misled the ATF, I agree, that would be on him.

In 2000 he was issued the patent for his device.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6101918A/en

It’s clear his intentions, in the patent, were to use a coil spring to return the trigger back to the finger.



It was five years later that the ATF said “single function of the trigger” doesn’t really mean that, if a spring is moving everything away from and back into your finger to automatically cause repeated function of the trigger.



https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...lusively-designed-increase-rate-fire/download

The fact that years later they declared a very similar product, except it used no spring, not regulated by the National Firearms Act.



That flip flop is much more well known though.

 

[CapnMac]

This law, signed by Clinton, did include a grandfather clause. It also included a sunset clause and expired in 2004. The bumpstock ban, signed by Trump in 2019 did not include a grandfather clause.

The Fed AWB was law enacted by Congress and modified 18 USC 922.

The "bump stock ban" was entirely ginned up by BATFE (and was not "signed" by anyone--it was done "under direction" of the Attorney General), and was a modification of the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations.

The firearms community was not quite as organized then as it is now, and the Public Comment period on the BSB did not generate enough negative Comments needing addressing as other, more recent, Proposed Changes.

 

[redcon1]

The bumpstock ban, signed by Trump in 2019 did not include a grandfather clause.

It bears repeating. Waiting to see what his justices do.

 

[dogtown tom]

......The "bump stock ban" was entirely ginned up by BATFE (and was not "signed" by anyone--it was done "under direction" of the Attorney General)....

Not exactly. ATF had previously issued determination letters that bump stocks were not machine guns. After the Las Vegas shootings, the White House, specifically Trump, directly instructed the DOJ/ATF to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. Trump had blamed Obama for having legalized bump stocks, Trump calling them a "bad idea". So much for his Second Amendment support.

The firearms community was not quite as organized then as it is now,

You have to be kidding. In fact in 2017 the NRA was likely at its peak influence. The NRA didn't begin to unravel until 2019 when it sued Ackerman McQueen.

and the Public Comment period on the BSB did not generate enough negative Comments needing addressing as other, more recent, Proposed Changes.

It wouldn't have mattered if the comments were 99:1.

 

[jmorris]

Trump calling them a "bad idea". So much for his Second Amendment support.

Not only that he set the precedent of existing samples not being grandfathered and I cannot believe that not a single gun grabber has pointed out the fact that a sliding plastic stock is unnecessary to bump fire a semiauto, so they should all be turned in or destroyed too…

 

[wvfarrier]

Wait.... didnt the bsb get over turned in court?

 

[Styx]

Wait.... didnt the bsb get over turned in court?

No