Search found 2 matches

by K.Mooneyham
Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:55 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard
Replies: 26
Views: 12184

Re: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:43 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:13 am
The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:24 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.
Granted. But I have to wonder how many were actually turned in/destroyed. I don’t have one. Never did, as I personally see no use for them other than for entertainment purposes. (I’m not that easily entertained.) That said, they were not a registered item. EVEN IF law enforcement decided to track down credit card receipts from those vendors that sold them online, there’s no way to prove that a bumpstock buyer still has his bumpstock.

"Where’s your bumpstock?"

"I destroyed it, like I was told to."

"Show us the pieces."

"Are you kidding me? I cut it up into pieces and burned it on March 24, 2019, two days before the deadline! There’s LITERALLY no pieces left! Have a nice day, Mein Herr."
As much as some folks want that done, the Feds don't have the resources to accomplish that (though I know you already know that). Heck, the State of California can't even track down all the people with "illegal assault weapons", and many of the rural counties in that state just don't care unless one of those is used in a crime. Thus the ownership of an "illegal assault weapon" in one of those rural counties there becomes a tack-on charge. I'd imagine the same would apply for bump stocks, though the use of a bump stock would be a bit more obvious, and the user would run the risk of someone ratting him or her out to the authorities.
The guy from the YouTube channel Toflaefermous (sp?) is a cop in central California and said that plenty of people in his area have non California compliant ARs, and they’re not worried about having them.
I watch pretty much all of Taofledermaus' videos, pretty entertaining stuff. :thumbs2:
by K.Mooneyham
Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:13 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard
Replies: 26
Views: 12184

Re: Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:24 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.
Granted. But I have to wonder how many were actually turned in/destroyed. I don’t have one. Never did, as I personally see no use for them other than for entertainment purposes. (I’m not that easily entertained.) That said, they were not a registered item. EVEN IF law enforcement decided to track down credit card receipts from those vendors that sold them online, there’s no way to prove that a bumpstock buyer still has his bumpstock.

"Where’s your bumpstock?"

"I destroyed it, like I was told to."

"Show us the pieces."

"Are you kidding me? I cut it up into pieces and burned it on March 24, 2019, two days before the deadline! There’s LITERALLY no pieces left! Have a nice day, Mein Herr."
As much as some folks want that done, the Feds don't have the resources to accomplish that (though I know you already know that). Heck, the State of California can't even track down all the people with "illegal assault weapons", and many of the rural counties in that state just don't care unless one of those is used in a crime. Thus the ownership of an "illegal assault weapon" in one of those rural counties there becomes a tack-on charge. I'd imagine the same would apply for bump stocks, though the use of a bump stock would be a bit more obvious, and the user would run the risk of someone ratting him or her out to the authorities.

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