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.
srothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:57 am
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.
Seems to me I've read a document that says something very similar to that.
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.
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.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
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.
Gun shops are selling bump stocks again in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi after federal regulators failed to appeal a ruling that lifted a ban imposed after a Las Vegas rampage left 58 people dead.
The federal government had until Monday to appeal the Jan. 6 ruling.
When the deadline passed, the appeals court directed the lower court to execute its ruling.
“Bump Stocks are now legal in TEXAS, LOUISIANA & MISSISSIPPI,” Cargill tweeted Tuesday.
rtschl wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:04 pm
So the Federal Government didn't appeal the loss.
Gun shops are selling bump stocks again in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi after federal regulators failed to appeal a ruling that lifted a ban imposed after a Las Vegas rampage left 58 people dead.
The federal government had until Monday to appeal the Jan. 6 ruling.
When the deadline passed, the appeals court directed the lower court to execute its ruling.
“Bump Stocks are now legal in TEXAS, LOUISIANA & MISSISSIPPI,” Cargill tweeted Tuesday.
Grayling813 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:45 pm
Now on to overturning new ATF pistol brace rules.
My fear is that it, too, will be decided by the courts, and that the ruling will be favorable but will come over a year after the ATF's arbitrary deadline that makes many of those still in possession of a brace a felon.
Meanwhile, my friend has decided his brace simply won't gracefully come off his purchased-as-configured AR pistol, and the only recourse is either NFA registration or cutting the brace off the buffer tube. Brace is securely glued on there, which may end up meaning destruction of the buffer tube itself. What's next, ATF? Ya gonna try to illegally legislate that pinned and staked flash hiders no longer count toward minimum barrel length?
“Be ready; now is the beginning of happenings.”
― Robert E. Howard, Swords of Shahrazar
If I'm in possession of something that is legal and then suddenly the ATF says it's not that means nothing to me. You don't just change the rules and expect people to comply.
I don't possess an AR based pistol and have no money in the game, but have a question. Since they have an extended buffer tube would it be illegal to wrap cushioning material around or on the end or maybe a rubber ball and then brace it in the crook of your shoulder and arm pit? It just seems so stupid that the buffer tube could be used as a rudimentary brace for the elbow or shoulder/armpit, albeit probably not all that comfortable, but something added for comfort would be illegal. Or am I missing the ATF's purpose in calling them SBR's with a brace that could be shouldered? If so that is idiotic since an AR pistol could be shouldered with the buffer tube. I hope that issue is tackled by the SCOTUS
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
cirus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:39 pm
If I'm in possession of something that is legal and then suddenly the ATF says it's not that means nothing to me. You don't just change the rules and expect people to comply.
The ATF does not get to decide what is or is not legal. They can simply give their opinion of whether they think something is legal. So far they have given one opinion that they think PSB's are legal, and one opinion that they think PSB's are not legal. Both of their opinions have something in common. They do not change or impact the actual law.
Paraphrasing what another forum member likes to say, we each need to decide what risks we are comfortable with. But I'm not a big fan of letting the varied opinions of an administrative agency cause me to restrict my fundamental individual rights.
