BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sb707 trigger activator
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
thep1zzaman
Member
- May 3, 2018
- 10
So, does the bump stock ban give binary trigger owners ground to now stand on? The ATF said they didn't have legal the authority to grant approval to MD bumpstock or binary trigger owners. Now that they are regulating bumpstocks, but not binary triggers is there new langauge we should try on our letters for binary triggers?
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The ATF has no more authority to "approve" an "application" for a binary trigger than it does for a bumpstock. They are simply not in the business of doing that. And the States are free to ban stuff not banned by the new ATF rule.
He’s the most pro-2A President ever
Everybody knows it.
Other Presidents?
Total 2A disasters. Believe me.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
Sorry, but he's -1 right now. And we still don't know how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would rule, so he might be -3 or +1.
And we haven't heard anything about the Hearing Protection Act. There was "supposed" to be a vote before year-end (yeah, right). Why isn't Trump pushing that?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
I missed this one. Talk about bad laws...
https://www.nfafa.org/atf41p.cfm
What is ATF Rule 41f?
ATF Rule 41f is the final regulatory rule signed by the Obama administration on January 4, 2016 regarding the transfer and manufacture of weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. The initial proposed rule (Rule 41p) proposed adding a new definition of a "responsible person" (RP) to the regulations and would have required all RPs in any entity used to purchase or manufacture NFA weapons to obtain the signature of their Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO signature) on the application, as well as submit fingerprints and photographs for review by ATF examiners.
Entities, such as trusts, LLCs and corporations, have become popular for acquiring NFA weapons because individuals experienced great difficulty in obtaining the CLEO signature in many areas of the country, if it was not outright impossible, and the use of an entity to acquire such weapons did not previously require the applicant to obtain the CLEO signature.
and ….
In addition, use of a gun trust eliminates the need for a judicial probate process to transfer the weapons upon your death. When you consider that an attorney's retainer to do the most basic of probates may be $2,500 or more, this is a no-brainer.
Finally, a properly constructed gun trust is a comprehensive management system to instruct successors on how these weapons need to be handled, so that they know what restrictions are involved and don't get into trouble with these weapons.
I don't have a NFA item. and this simply sounds nefarious and abusive.
Yeah, I think Trump supports 2A about as far as Hogan does - which is to say: probably more than his Dem opponent, but still not very much.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,748
I read this has been appealed in 4th Circuit.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Just finished reading it. It should be a slam dunk to get this rolling again. IANAL The Horne part of the argument seems undeniable.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,748
How did this law deny people the right to dispose of (sell where legal) or move the personal property out of state before it went in effect? There was an opportunity to mitigate loss, but some cases cited not so much so that oppurtunity, and you can be sure to read that is in the response. These cites are in other 2A cases, argued in other states. Maybe wait for the response before seeing a "slam dunk".
Just finished reading that myself. Impressive. I can't even imagine what it costs to create this filing. Considering the research and compilation of this case law, it certainly is in the over 100K category. Looks like another donation to MSI will be made today.
Reading documents like this demonstrates that in order to maintain your rights as a citizen, you must support advocacy groups such as the NRA, GOA, MSI, etc. There is no way someone could d this solo.
Reading documents like this demonstrates that in order to maintain your rights as a citizen, you must support advocacy groups such as the NRA, GOA, MSI, etc. There is no way someone could d this solo.
They state required me to mitigate my loss for thier law. That's a takings.
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
I'm a little more guarded in my opinion. Since the 4th has made some crazy ruling in the past, I'll give it a 50/50 chance. I'm also not sure how the court is going to take to the appeal of multiple matters. I am concerned that the appeal is too broad. IANOL, but it would seem that the appeal needs to be more directed towards one aspect of the law.
My question to the lawyer types would be, if the 4th finds merit in one of the concerns, but not everything included in the appeal, what does the court do in this type of instance? Do they have the ability to rule in favor of the government on some items and the plaintiff on the other items. Does the fact that they favor the plaintiff on one item warrant the entire appeal be in favor of the plaintiff?
Help out an old redneck trying to understand these flatlander's laws.
“Flatlander Laws”....can I use this, too? Funny!
PowPow
Where's the beef?
The slam dunk I mentioned was in getting the case back into court. It was dismissed due to lack of standing, and no prior notification and provision was made for the plaintiffs to address that. That's a problem. There are other problems with how it was handled, but the main thing is that the court said the equivalent of "Goodbye, we're done here."
PowPow
Where's the beef?
While I believe it is a slam dunk to get the case back into court and have oral arguments (as requested in the appeal), I too am guarded as to the outcome should the case be heard. I believe there are some really important legal concepts at play here that I expect the judiciary would like to define even better. The Horne and Loretto cases seem to be clearly applicable to SB707, but they've been misapplied by the district court. That's a place where I feel we have some hope.
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
Sure, be my guest!
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The litigation fund desperately needs replenishment! Come on guys, this stuff is NOT cheap. If any of these bills currently before GA pass, we are going to need a lot more funds to litigate.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline"- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school (2 Viewers)- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
-