randomuser
Ultimate Member
When will the rest of the lawmakers admit that they lack the authority to continue to infringe and repeal the past infringements?
ATF Admits It Lacked Authority To Ban Bump Stocks
- Thread starter TinCuda
- Start date
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:
We should get it added as an ADA regulation so that all DI, Piston, pump action or delayed blowback firearms that can be fitted with barrels longer than 14 inches, are required to include a brace type device. Or you don’t care about people with disabilities.
lawrencewendall
Been There, Done That
- Oct 10, 2009
- 1,746
This is being kicked around on Quora by much smarter people than me.
Erik Wirtz
Dec 2 · 9 upvotes
While I fully agree with your analysis, really is that they are already setting precedence for ex post facto laws where firearms are concerned. Look at what they just did with bump stocks. While they are not much more than a gimmick, those regulations made many people instantly felons.
Dameon Wittacker
Dameon Wittacker
Original Author · Dec 2 · 12 upvotes
Absolutely, and that is going through the courts on regulated taking and ex post facto challenges.
They banned bump stocks by claiming they violate the previous “machine gun ban” and as such the law applies retroactively, but in the amendment to the law they change the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks and actually mention bump stocks did not exist or match the terms in the amendment.
There’s some who have the opinion that they knew it would end up struck down eventually, over either regulated taking or ex post facto, and as such the ban was simply a political maneuver it was never intended to actually be a ban.
Ben Cowan
Ben Cowan
Mon · 4 upvotes
There was no law passed regarding bump stocks, the ATF unilaterally, and illegally changed the definition of machine gun. Even though it's codified in Congressionally passed legislation. The executive branch (whom the atf falls under) has no constitutional authority to redefine anything.
Mike Forti
Mike Forti
Wed
So in effect, we had a non-elected body making laws… say it ain’t so! The alphabet agencies get bolder every day. Their “regulations” come closer and closer to resembling laws, and their enforcement folks look more and more like shock troops as time goes on. We need a definitive supreme court ruling that tosses these agencies, bureaus, czars and commissions out on their collective asses.
Erik Wirtz
Dec 2 · 9 upvotes
While I fully agree with your analysis, really is that they are already setting precedence for ex post facto laws where firearms are concerned. Look at what they just did with bump stocks. While they are not much more than a gimmick, those regulations made many people instantly felons.
Dameon Wittacker
Dameon Wittacker
Original Author · Dec 2 · 12 upvotes
Absolutely, and that is going through the courts on regulated taking and ex post facto challenges.
They banned bump stocks by claiming they violate the previous “machine gun ban” and as such the law applies retroactively, but in the amendment to the law they change the definition of machine gun to include bump stocks and actually mention bump stocks did not exist or match the terms in the amendment.
There’s some who have the opinion that they knew it would end up struck down eventually, over either regulated taking or ex post facto, and as such the ban was simply a political maneuver it was never intended to actually be a ban.
Ben Cowan
Ben Cowan
Mon · 4 upvotes
There was no law passed regarding bump stocks, the ATF unilaterally, and illegally changed the definition of machine gun. Even though it's codified in Congressionally passed legislation. The executive branch (whom the atf falls under) has no constitutional authority to redefine anything.
Mike Forti
Mike Forti
Wed
So in effect, we had a non-elected body making laws… say it ain’t so! The alphabet agencies get bolder every day. Their “regulations” come closer and closer to resembling laws, and their enforcement folks look more and more like shock troops as time goes on. We need a definitive supreme court ruling that tosses these agencies, bureaus, czars and commissions out on their collective asses.
BlueHeeler
Ultimate Member
This type of backdoor regulation should cause more outrage.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone like a a president Bloomberg could use this exact path to classify all semi-auto as a machine gun.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone like a a president Bloomberg could use this exact path to classify all semi-auto as a machine gun.
People should really stop misusing the term "ex post facto."
Post hoc, n'est pas?
