TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:47 pmWell, isn't "public safety" for "use" by the public? Supposedly the public at large, taken as an entity, are the ones benefiting from both stopping the manufacturing of those stocks and the taking away of those stocks from those who legally purchased those items in good faith. The government should be forced to compensate every owner, AND the manufacturers, for every stock taken, at fair market value.

This is an argument that might work but is a stretch. The question is if by banning an object, is the government using it. You could try to use the argument made in the New London eminent domain case as a basis, but I am not sure it will work. Remember that in that case, they said it was for public use IF it would produce a higher tax base to produce revenues the government could use for other things. In this case, you would have to argue that "public safety" reduces the cost to government allowing them to use that money for other works.

I doubt this would work but it might. I personally think the best argument is still that the interpretation is a rewriting of the law and the trigger is only being worked once per shot, no matter how fast the devices make it work. I think the legal question the court will have to decide is what is meant in the law by one function of the trigger, and even more technically, what is the trigger.

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:41 pmDidn’t the ATF originally write an opinion for these saying they are legal. How can they then come backna couple of years later after millions are sold and ban them?

Yes, they did, but there is no rule or law saying the government cannot change their mind on an interpretation of the law. This happens regularly as the administration changes. I agree that this poses problems for defending the new interpretation in court, but it is not the first time that the government has said you cannot trust our previous opinion on something. Ask any accountant if you can rely on the IRS' interpretation of their own rules, for example.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:47 pm The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Yes, they can. And I am answering in a legal fashion, not as some others have posted about realistic based on might.

This is one of the greatest misunderstandings of the law. Most people think the Fifth Amendment stops the government from seizing your property without compensation. But you will note that it actually says the property cannot be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without compensation. A confiscation of this type is not property taken for public use. The rest of the amendment says it cannot deprive you of property without due process of law, but the argument would be that the rule making was due process of law.

I believe that the ban would be legal under the Fifth Amendment.

There is only one way I can see that this ban is not legal. I see this as an illegal reinterpretation of the way Congress wrote the law and it does not meet the definitions in the law. But this has happened with other laws and been upheld. One example is the law that says health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people because of their activities (such as motorcycle or horse riding). The regulations written by HHS specifically allow insurance companies to not provide coverage for certain dangerous activities, exactly what the federal law was trying to stop. I have little faith that federal courts will not uphold this ban.

jason812 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:07 pm Is there any data to see how many have been turned in? I'm guessing single digit percentages.

Two were turned in Austin, just to enable the owner to file a federal lawsuit over the ban. He waited until he had been harmed by the law.