The Annoyed Man wrote:I left the following comment:I do not own a bump stock, and absent a change to the proposed ruling, I’m not sure I’d admit it even if I did. Anybody who bought one of these devices did so in good faith that they were legal to own at the time. That good faith was based in part on the ATF’s own prior rulings that a bump stock did not make their firearm into a machine gun, because - despite the untruth in the wording of proposed rule - a bump stock does NOT cause one trigger pull to fire multiple rounds. Rather, all it does is enable very rapid consecutive single pulls of the trigger. I personally avoided buying one of these devices because it seemed predictable (to me) that one day the federal gov’t would determine that bump stock ownership is too much liberty to be allowed. I was right. HOWEVER, as I said, those that did buy one, did so in good faith that it was lawful, per the ATF’s own regulations and interpretations. Requiring those owners to either surrender or destroy their bump stocks WITHOUT compensating them constitutes a taking without due process, and in my opinion it would be unconstitutional. If the gov’t takes or requires destruction of these devices without compensating the individual owners for the material loss, it would be a violation of the 5th Amendment protections under the Bill of Rights.
The 5th Amendment says: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.“
The federal gov’t is taking private property. The claimed “public use” is to enhance public safety by destroying that property. WHERE IS THE JUST COMPENSATION in the proposed ATF rule? I do not see it mentioned in the document.
Although I hate the rule, I accept that the ATF must on occasion make changes to its rules to keep up with changing technologies. But the Constitution DOES NOT CHANGE - except by Amendment - and neither the Executive, or the ATF acting as the Executive’s agent, has the constitutional authority to take private property without due process AND just compensation, when it was purchased in good faith according to then current ATF regulations and rules interpretations. To do so would break faith with the American people, and break faith with the Constitution.
I therefore think that, since the ATF has gone to the trouble to estimate the average retail cost per unit, the proposed rule should be amended to include compensation to private owners for either destroying or turning in their bump stocks for destruction.
Absent that amendment, this proposed rules change lacks any legitimacy under the Constitution of the United States.
Great comment TAM. However, I disagree with you on one point: "...constitutional authority to take private property without due process AND just compensation..." The 5th Amendment does not require both, it requires one or the other dependent on circumstance. For example, if you get a notice that your house is being taken under eminent domain, they are constitutionally obligated to pay you for the property, but they are not required to go through the courts and win. Another example is a person who commits a felony - their guns and their right to own them is taken through due process after the person's conviction, and no one is required to compensate the criminal for it.
Note the position of the semicolons in the Amendment as they change from one aspect of the material to another: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Thus, compensation (but not due process) is required if the property is taken for public use, such as land being taken to construct a new highway, and due process (but not compensation) is required for all other confiscation of property.
The question, then, is this: what constitutes due process of law? Does that power rest solely with the judicial, or do the legislative or executive branches meet that requirement? Can legislation be passed that meets the requirements of "due process of law"? I'm sure this topic has been touched on by someone and now that I think about this question I'm quite curious to hear the answer.