W2D
Ultimate Member
Nothing like creating fear in the citizenry that the government can find you in violation of some obscure law any time they feel the need.
Smh.
Sent from my bunker using Tapatalk Pro
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:
Nothing like creating fear in the citizenry that the government can find you in violation of some obscure law any time they feel the need.
Smh.
Sent from my bunker using Tapatalk Pro
Abulg1972
Ultimate Member
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
If one didn't apply for approval by Oct 1, gun oil is illegal to own now. Come Oct 2019, it will be illegal to own regardless.
A federal judge indicated gun oil met the definition under the law.
Its NOT the ATF we worry about, it's the MSP and MD Attorney General's office.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Abulg1972
Ultimate Member
This is just not true. I can personally guarantee that every non-applyer and owner of anal-ese is safe.
Are you disagreeing that a federal judge said this, or that a well maintained, cleaned and properly lubricated firearm has potential for a higher rate of fire?
Abulg1972
Ultimate Member
I am disagreeing that a federal judge said this. I was actually in the courtroom during the entire hearing and didn’t fall asleep or nothing.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
You are quite right, he didn't mention "gun oil." But did go to some length over the vagueness of the statutory language. This is from the transcript:
THE COURT: Yeah, I understand that, but it's all in
the statute and the rapid fire activator, whatever, that's
listed there, and then the examples are given and so forth.
But -- and I'm not firearms expert, but let's take a bolt
action rifle that fires one shot at a time, and then requires
a manual, mechanical, motion or action by the operator of the
weapon in order to fire another round. That is not, I
understand, the object of this statute, it's not concerned
with those kinds of firearms, at least that's what the state
tells me.
MS. KATZ: Well, the --
THE COURT: But we have to give statutes their plain
meaning, and not be confined to the Attorney General's
interpretation of them, the legislature's interpretation of
it, even the legislative history, if the plain language itself
answers our question as to what it means. And so, you know,
you take a bolt action rifle, boom, you fire. You pull the
bolt. You pull it back. You rechamber another round. You
drop back in and you fire again. It's not inconceivable to me
that somebody could be thinking about how to make that process
a little bit more efficient so that there were three motions
instead of four necessary to chamber the next round.
MS. KATZ: Well, the -- I think that the language in
the statute that negates that concern is where it says that
the -- a device, any device constructed so that when installed
in or attached to a firearm. And I think what that means is
that the device itself is intrinsic to the device. The device
is constructed, it is designed and built to accomplish this
end. And it necessary --
THE COURT: And the end is what?
MS. KATZ: It necessarily -- by installing that on
to the firearm, it necessarily, without any affirmative action
of the user, other than one pull of a trigger, it increases
the rate at which the trigger activates --
THE COURT: Where does the statute confine the
definition of devices in the manner that you described, that
is no involvement of the operator, just improves the
efficiency of the firearm, intrinsically, without its
interaction with the user or other facts or circumstances.
MS. KATZ: It has to be constructed so that this is
what occurs, so it's -- it necessarily increases the rate of
fire when it's attached to a firearm and the person pulls the
trigger. That's -- the construction of the device causes
that. It doesn't depend --
THE COURT: Does it say necessarily?
MS. KATZ: It doesn't say necessarily in the
statute, but it's constructed so that when it is attached this
is what happens. So there is some cause and effect --
THE COURT: Well, in my theory we're going to have a
bolt action rifle where you don't have to flip up the bolt,
you just pull the bolt back and push it back in and somehow
that accomplishes the chambering of the round.
MS. KATZ: That's still the user pulling back,
accomplishing the chamber of the round, perhaps in fewer
steps, but that's an affirmative step of the user. And it's
not necessary, the user can --
THE COURT: Yeah, but the necessary word isn't in
the statute.
MS. KATZ: The necessary word isn't in the statute,
but I think it's implied by the constructed so that when it is
attached this is what happens. It's intrinsic to the device
itself, it doesn't depend on an individual user being able to
fire more efficiently, pull the trigger each time more
efficiently. It's what occurs by the construction of the
device when it is attached to a firearm and the trigger is
activated. And that's -- that is a read of this statute that
comports with the text, comports with the legislative history,
comports with the actual name of the item that is being banned
under Maryland law, and should be adopted by the Court.
But in any event there's no risk of immediate
irreparable harm, because there's no threatened enforcement or
application of the statute in the way that the plaintiffs have
proffered. And people can apply to the ATF to keep them
during the pendency of this litigation. And the preliminary
injunction standard is about what happens during the pendency
of the litigation, not whether at this point in time Your
Honor thinks that this is a reasonable -- reasonably likely to
occur if the statute goes into effect.
THE COURT: The petition for a temporary restraining
order is denied. The plaintiff is unable to demonstrate the
potential for irreparable harm by the requisite standard. The
escape hatch of someone in possession of one of these devices
being able to extend the period during which they're able to
lawfully possess it, by merely applying to the ATF for
permission to do so, is what eliminates the potential for
irreparable harm, possibly among other circumstances, but that
by itself eliminates the potential for irreparable harm in
this circumstance.
The word "apply" is a very general term. The
Court's example with respect to applying for a job, I think is
germane. I accept the state's rapid but persuasive, what are
we going to call it, the thesaurus moment when we talk about
what does apply mean, to seek, to try to obtain, whatever,
it's -- it doesn't take much to apply. So it's on that basis
that the request for this relief is denied.
We have a long road ahead of us in this case, I
suspect. Ms. Katz, it would be a mistake for the State to
leave here today thinking that the Court is unconcerned about
the vagueness argument raised by plaintiffs. The sweep of the
statute, the fact that it does not contain some of the
qualifiers like "necessary," that you employed in your
argument, are of concern to the Court. These are not issues
that I have to reach today, because the ruling is grounded
elsewhere. But -- and ultimately, I may well be persuaded
that applying the precedents that I'm bound to follow, there
at the end of the day is not a vagueness problem with the
language as it is presently composed. But maybe I will have a
problem with it. And that's a message I hope will be heard.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Even if the court doesn't have an issue with vagueness, it should rule in favor of the plaintiffs on all other grounds, particularly the takings. But, IANAL.
Abulg1972
Ultimate Member
The court has an issue with vagueness. The judge said that loud and clear.
I got my “return without action” letter last week.
It seems the judge believes in the possibility of harm and ..... the one year is plenty of time for this case to make it through the courts? Possibly including SCOTUS ?
Will this case be finalized in < 11 months ?
Will this case be finalized in < 11 months ?
RoadDawg
Nos nostraque Deo
- Dec 6, 2010
- 94,394
If not... the Judge may renew the stay... pending final ruling. At least for those who applied under this one.
So, when the popo come and seize your weapons under 1302 and they determine one of your guns meets the vagueness of 707, do you automatically become a felon? Considering your paperwork proving you are grandfathered is also seized and subsequently lost during the police raid of your home.
.... from my cold, dead (oh, there's the doorbell, brb)
Oh, good, thanks. The word "may" may worry some.
Is the judge who made this decision on the case till the end?
It seems the suit got lucky getting a judge who knows something about how a firearm works however his knowledge of football has taught him how to punt this political football. I know judges are not political but I am thinking that as he walked into the courtroom that day images of the Gov happily signing this bill sitting with a bunch of mean looking ladies wearing pink shirts "may" have been going through his head. A chill just went down my spine thinking of that. and he had to rule on this ... yeah, I would punt too!
However, ICBW.
Doesn't Frog lube as well as some other lubes say they "attach" to metal molecules? Also, an action operates on pressures so if any leaks wouldn't carbon "attach" to the firearm in places where gas escapes which may cause higher pressures and faster action movement? Yeah, I'm reaching a little but so does this new law.
Last edited:
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Oh, good, thanks. The word "may" may worry some.
Is the judge who made this decision on the case till the end?
It seems the suit got lucky getting a judge who knows something about how a firearm works however his knowledge of football has taught him how to punt this political football. I know judges are not political but I am thinking that as he walked into the courtroom that day images of the Gov happily signing this bill sitting with a bunch of mean looking ladies wearing pink shirts "may" have been going through his head. A chill just went down my spine thinking of that. and he had to rule on this ... yeah, I would punt too!
However, ICBW.
Doesn't Frog lube as well as some other lubes say they "attach" to metal molecules? Also, an action operates on pressures so if any leaks wouldn't carbon "attach" to the firearm in places where gas escapes which may cause higher pressures and faster action movement? Yeah, I'm reaching a little but so does this new law.
Yea, your reaching, but so is the law or any attorney!
I'll continue to use Ballistol and Outers Gunslick.
.... from my cold, dead (oh, there's the doorbell, brb)
I see that yours has the "Marksman Spout." Clearly intended for gun owners!
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
That looks like a SBC to me. Where's your stamp?
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,751
No one was brave enough to tell him he's well over a 100 years too late?
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
