BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

Not_an_outlaw said:

Blaming one of our members who is active is pointless. I blame the Fudds that allowed this to happen....if you want to blame anyone on our side.

Click to expand...

44man said:

some folks don't know any better

they figure they know it all, do it all and any deviance is to be called out and punished

I find it funny to tell you the truth, either way this election goes we have a anti gun anti constitutional leftist democrat who, when I was younger, would have been considered unelectable as a dog catcher, in the governors mansion.

Click to expand...

shmuel2004 said:

AGC has told me that they will start prohibiting bump stock, echo triggers, etc. on 10/1/18

Click to expand...

Rack&Roll said:

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore.

At first I thought that no one would be foolish enough to parade one around at a range after Oct. 1 but AGC is doing folks a favor who don’t follow news from the gun grabbing MGA.

Click to expand...

squaregrouper said:

Name of "AGC" please.

Click to expand...

Rack&Roll said:

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore.

At first I thought that no one would be foolish enough to parade one around at a range after Oct. 1 but AGC is doing folks a favor who don’t follow news from the gun grabbing MGA.

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

I’m curious if these clubs also check for heavy barrel post oct. 1 ARs and the like as well? Or maybe it’s good to just cover part of ones ass. Off topic sorry.

Click to expand...

Not_an_outlaw said:

Derailed comment: I'm confused here. How could shooting at a range while open carrying be prohibited at the range?

Railed Comment - Aren't bump stock and binary triggers legal after 10/1/18 for one more year?

Click to expand...

srephwed said:

So what about the bump stock suit?

Click to expand...

As expected, the State has moved to dismiss the Complaint filed in the Bump Stock suit. The motion can be found here: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...-documents/114-motion-to-dismiss-takings-case

Unsurprisingly, the State is arguing that it free to ban personal property without paying just compensation under the federal and state Constitutions because, after all, you can just move the devices out of state. The State is also arguing that there is nothing vague about SB 707. Our response is due August 3 and we will update you soon thereafter. Stay tuned.

Click to expand...

44man said:

And I guess you don’t read my posts but I decided myself my family the guys working for me

Click to expand...

shmuel2004 said:

AGC has told me that they will start prohibiting bump stock, echo triggers, etc. on 10/1/18

Click to expand...

Stoveman said:

I'll derail the train slightly as well. I had an RSO ask to see my carry permit when I was at the pistol range and was open carrying. I humored him and showed it to him and he asked if I got it as a business owner to which I replied in the affirmative. He then told me that I was carrying outside of my restrictions which wasn't allowed at AGC. I flipped it over and he abruptly turned and left.


Back to bump stocks....

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

I don't find it helpful to concede that a bump stocks is a piece of plastic not protected by 2A. We don't have case law saying it is protected, but that just means we haven't heard from the court yet, it does not mean it won't be protected. An adverse holding should not be presumed. It's all too easy to not find the clarity we would like regarding the limits of 2A protections because there have been so few cases.

If we look at 1A we find a large collection of opinions fleshing out the extent of speech and press freedoms. These freedoms are not narrow, they are quite expansive. If one has a narrow view of these rights, one may think that only the ability to speak out of one's mouth or to print and pass newspapers or handbills are protected, and little more. This is hardly the case. Press protections include a reporter's right to gather news, to maintain the confidentiality of sources, and other activities whose absence may not directly limit his/her right to speak or publish, but would certainly give them less to speak or write about. These other rights facilitate, serve, enhance or make more effective their/our practice of the enumerated right.

We lack such 2A jurisprudence, and it will take decades to fill in the blanks. If we take the narrow view that 2A only protects a specific piece of hardware as it comes from S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc., then we have unnecessarily hobbled our own starting position. I suggest we take an approach that gets us to a similar place that we have seen develop with regard to 1A. Argue that not only is the arm itself protected, but so is the magazine, the ammunition, ammo components, trigger, stock and optics, as well as having ranges and places to shoot, to train, and to have and do all of those other things which, if we didn't have them, would make simply owning a basic arm a hollow right. Remember, these rights exist for a purpose. The purpose is not to just own an arm for its own sake, but to ensure these arms are useful to you, me and our fellow citizens for protecting ourselves, our families, our communities and our freedoms. To do that, you need more than the narrow right to own a piece of basic hardware that is designed or approved by others. You need all of the supporting things and abilities to make that hardware meaningful.

In regard to the present bump stock case, I see the point of going the "takings" route. The decades-long journey of defining the boundaries of 2A will take countless steps, and takings is a step following the path of least resistance. More robust arguments focusing on 2A will come later as more suitable fact patterns are found. The NAACP searched long and hard to find the right plaintiff before it found the Brown family to go after the Topeka Board of Education. Such patience and selectivity will be required for this journey as well.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

Come on ... we need to be rational and reasonable and pick our battles. A bump stock isn’t the same as, say, a magazine. It’s not an integral component of a firearm that’s necessary for its operation. It’s an accessory, plain and simple. It’s the same as a red dot sight. There is no way in the wide world of sports that we are going to convince even the most conservative court that the 2A protects the right to own a device that isn’t integral to, or necessary for the operation of, a firearm, especially a device that actually makes, in general, a firearm less useful. There is no way that there will ever be 2A jurisprudence that is even remotely similar in scope to 1A jurisprudence.

People want to spend - and waste - political capital on bump stocks. IMHO, that’s a stupid and useless waste of effort, time, money, etc. Not everything “gun” is important, and that’s one of the issues I have with the gun world in general - everyone thinks that God and Country should prevail because Guns and Murica. This accessory is not important, other than with respect to the idea that what was once legal cannot be made illegal without paying owners for the termination of that right.

Click to expand...