Search found 2 matches

by srothstein
Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:57 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard
Replies: 26
Views: 12185

Re: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard

NotRPB wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:37 pm
srothstein wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:39 pm
flechero wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:11 pm I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?
Yes, they became illegal to own, so the ruling said it must be destroyed or turned in to the police for destruction.
Somewhere I read some Eminent Domain thingy or maybe some country's constitution where some government couldn't deprive a person of property without just compensation. I never owned one but how much was each person paid ? I missed that news. I may have some other Country in mind.
Actually, that is one of the loopholes in the Fifth Amendment. It actually only requires compensation in certain cases, specifically if the property is taken for public use. I am guessing that the founders never thought the government had the authority to make ownership of anything illegal, since I cannot find that power granted in the Constitution, but it is not forbidden anywhere either.

Maybe that is the way to fight the ban - if the power to forbid something is not granted to the federal government it must be reserved for the states. I don't think I like that precedent though.
by srothstein
Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:39 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard
Replies: 26
Views: 12185

Re: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard

flechero wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:11 pm I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?
Yes, they became illegal to own, so the ruling said it must be destroyed or turned in to the police for destruction.

Return to “Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard”