cheygriz
member
Before anyone goes completely "Chicken Little" stop and think.
We all knew this was coming, and we all know that we haven't lost anything.
We all knew this was coming, and we all know that we haven't lost anything.
I'm curious - has there been another case in recent history in which the US government retroactively declared a previously-legal object to be illegal and ordered its destruction / confiscation / turn-in?
The Department, however, has revised the definition of "single function of the trigger" to mean "single pull of the trigger" and analogous motions, taking into account that there are other methods of initiating an automatic firing sequence that do not require a pull.
Forgot about that. Thanks. Oh well. My 0 bumpstocks, still total 0. Darn.
Where do we turn them in to get reimbursed for their value?
Where do we turn them in to get reimbursed for their value?
Which will be one line of argument in the lawsuit. The manufacturers designed a product that worked around the definition of "machine gun" in Federal law, submitted their product to ATF to ensure that it was legal, and sold them in good faith. For DOJ to reverse ATF by fiat arguably constitutes an ex post facto law (prohibited by the Constitution). The situation is worsened by the 'solution' of uncompensated seizure.What reimbursement? Our dear leaders have determined that bump stocks are noxious items, and their prohibition does not count as a "taking".
Pop your popcorn, donate to the lawsuit. FWIW, I expect that suit to be more of a 4th Amendment takings case and an ex post facto law case than a 2A suit.
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
A bill of attainder is a law that simply declares, by legislative fiat, that certain people are guilty of a crime and then imposes some kind of punishment upon them. In other words, it's a way for a legislature to act like judge and jury, convicting and punishing people without benefit of trial. Bills of attainder used to be used occasionally by the British Parliament; the American Founding Fathers viewed them as terrible violations of liberty and banned them from the United States.
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively criminalizes a certain act after it has already been committed. In other words, it would allow a person to be prosecuted for doing something that wasn't actually illegal yet at the time they did it. The framers of the Constitution viewed ex post facto laws, like bills of attainder, as blatant abuses of power and banned them.
And what greater good would that be?Sometimes it's ok to give a little for the greater good.
You mean gun owners? Those of us that have seen enough of the one sided, we give you this and get nothing in return compromise are not "fringe". Those of us who are tired of being pushed around and talked down to by those that who think they know what is best for us as if we are children are not the "fringe". I've seen enough compromise to know that it's just a fancy word for losing.the reality is that those that get upset about this ban are a fringe group of a somewhat fringe group.
Doesn't seem too far of a stretch for our 'public servants' to ban semi-auto's after this tyranny that has occurred. I mean a semi-auto allows for faster firing then say a bolt action. Isn't a semi-auto in direct conflict with the 'spirit of the law' as well?
It sickens me that manufacturers can follow the letter of the law and we still can be stripped of our rights. This whole notion of 'spirit of the law' is reminiscent of what comes out the south side of a north bound rhino.
It'll be really convenient to give cover for losing our rights because we neglected to consider the spirit of the law in our endeavors. And it'll be conveniently used to strip even more of our rights away.
But hey why do I care, I don't own a bumpstock and never will? Looks like we have a bunch of gun owners who don't want to defend the front lines of 2A erosion in this country.
Where were ya'll when the NFA was started?? And where again, when the assault rifle ban happened??
Make a bunch of weird machine guns, make gun owners look bad, completely screw all of us. Does this not perfectly fit: ''Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.''? Some responsibility needs to fall on the manufacturer,and the owners. You knew this was wrong.
It's a stretch, but maybe that famous bumpstop saved us from another assault weapons ban. It could have just been a plain AR spraying down that crowd just as well.
As of right now, today it is not... at least according to the ATF.Ok, I'll play along.
Maybe because it's manufacturing a machine gun after the 1986 ban.