TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

flechero wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:04 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:13 am
Yeah, I have no desire to own one, but I agree that the original ruling was absolutely An agency over-reach

Totally agree and since I'm so far out of the loop- what was the original effect of the ban- were people destroying them, turning in, buyback, etc??

bagman45 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:12 pm That's really great to hear. Hopefully the full court will do a more appropriate analysis of the order and recognize it's absolute over-reach. If one random thing can be arbitrarily banned by the POTUS or any government "agency", ANYTHING can be arbitrarily banned....

The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, which takes issue with how government regulators moved to outlaw the devices in 2018.

While a 2-1 panel of the same court previously upheld the ban in May by relying in part on what is referred to as the Chevron deference, which allows courts to default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statues, Judge Joel Carson III, a President Trump appointee, dissented at the time, describing the ban as an overreach, saying, “turning a blind eye to the government’s request and applying Chevron anyway—the majority placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government."

Now, the full 12-judge court will rehear the challenge, with a special focus on if and how Chevron applies.

“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision," said Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA. "Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach."