BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

Zorros · Nov 18, 2018

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
I think Zorros is talking about the decision to deny the PI, not the decision to grant the MTD. Irreparable harm was not an element of any cause of action. Judge ruled on the MTD that MSI lacked standing (b/c they aren’t the Sierra Club), but that was immaterial to the opinion.

Ah. Did not even realize the motion to dismiss was granted. Yes, i was speaking of the denial of the PI. and one might have thought that standing would have been raised early on.
Yes, i filed briefs on behalf of friends of the court in both kolbe appeals and in the underlying dist ct case. as you know, the en banc broke with every other appellate ct that has considered the issue of assault style rifles, holding them to be unprotected under the 2A. That is a difficult position to accept under any circumstances as it does not leave analysis for viewing the legislation under any standard of scrutiny.
I do not want to identify here what i have done, but it includes considerable research, publication and teaching on the subject. I have my views ( not my bias or prejudices) and they are not compatible with the majority of the 4 th cir. One of the judges on that ct told me “ heller was scalia’s revenge on the citizenry”. As you know, the s ct refused to hear kolbe. But in the end, there is a large assortment of assault style rifles that are legal for transfer in md and they are not regulated. We are better off than some, although any encroachment is not acceptable.

LeadSled1 · Nov 19, 2018

fabsroman said:
As far as the ban on detachable mags is concerned, I think that is a complete 2A argument. Banning detachable mags makes a lot of firearms that are protected by the 2A pretty much useless. I would like to see a case on "assault weapons" or the banning of detachable mags make it to the current SCOTUS. The current SCOTUS is a lot different than what existed when Kolbe was going through the appeals process. This might actually be the time to take such a law as far as possible.

The problem is in court "pretty much" does not apply. It either is, or is not. As far as minimal functionality is concerned, and if you are reading between the lines, it becomes a scary concept. Even with a magazine disconnect, think dummy mag. It would take a long time to get a case like this to SCOTUS and any court proceedings before that will be dragged out as long as possible. In those courts we have seen how they rule on 2A cases based on injury, and injury based on the loss of functionality.........

Occam · Nov 19, 2018

LeadSled1 said:
In those courts we have seen how they rule on 2A cases based on injury, and injury based on the loss of functionality.........

You'd think it would be open and shut. A new law takes away the functionality (and thus the use of) a tool that a person relies on to protect and possibly save their life. Entire lifestyles, business opportunities, residential options, and more would immediately be stripped away (never mind the loss of hunting and sports, it would only take the case of increase personal risk by taking away commonly owned defensive weapons - something that's front and center in the 2A - to make the case). Injury should be very easy to establish, even if there isn't a handy plaintiff who was physically injured or lost a loved one because the law made self defense with common weapons illegal.

Zorros · Nov 19, 2018

The only arguments that make sense for HCM and assault syle rifles are 1 “ in common use” and 2 “ tyrancial government”. I think the sct refused to hear the argument based on in common use although kavanaughraised it in his dissent ( was it heller in the dc circuit?). Tyranical gov was delibertly not raised in the cert requestin kolbe as sounding too radical and risking alienation. Affirming the ban of ARs cts have held that a citizen is not deprived of a self defense right as there are many viable options. Self defense was not a consideration ( or not so much) in adopting the 2A, although scalia made it the centerpiece of his heller-handgun opinion. Someplace along the line concern for a thranical govt was replaced with concern for self defense, but the former is supported in early writing.

ironpony · Nov 19, 2018

"The Supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." Sun Tzu

Occam · Nov 19, 2018

Defense against a tyrannical government is just a special case of self defense.

The 2A was written to make sure that nobody in government could use the excuse of establishing a standing military as the grounds for doing what the British had so recently done: disarming individuals. They’re not addressing, in the Bill of Rights, WHY one might want to personally keep and bear, just that the government can’t infringe on that natural right.

But in thinking through the general concept of natural rights, self defense is the most sensible approach. It’s a natural right when you’re living alone in he wilderness, or in a village of 20 people, or in a big city. The existence of a militia or standing professional military doesn’t make that less true, and that’s what the 2A is about: being able to defend yourself. From bears OR bolsheviks.

Zorros · Nov 19, 2018

Occam, hellersays u have a right of self defense in the home. Courts considering the issue hold you dont need an ar as there are alternatives...a hand gun for instance they hold tongue in cheek. Self defense does not defeat an ar ban. There is a lot of early writing re tyranical govt and 2A. And there are those who take a scholarly but diiferent approach. Guns have always been regulated and they will continue to be.

jkeys · Nov 19, 2018

esqappellate said:
There is an appeal of right to the 4th Circuit if we want to take an appeal. An appeal can be on one issue or up to all issues. We have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. No way to know which judges will sit on the panel.

Wow, this decision can't be left to stand. It says that the state can confiscate any property it wants without compensation, except real estate. That is a huge assertion by this judge. If it weren't for the gun aspect I would be shocked if the ACLU wouldn't be interested in helping to fight that.

jkeys · Nov 19, 2018

fidelity said:
2) on the takings argument, whether citing MD or Federal code, the judge seemed pretty hostile to this argument, putting forward a history of such actions and claiming it would hamstring gov't to not be able to outlaw items or rule them as contraband if they had to provide compensation. He seemed dismissive of a CA ruling that would support this contention when it came to banning standard capacity, firearm magazines.

Isn't it the point of the constitution to protect indvidual liberties from the government? Of course a constitution should hamstring the government if it is trying to do something unconstituional.

Bob A · Nov 20, 2018

jkeys said:
Isn't it the point of the constitution to protect indvidual liberties from the government? Of course a constitution should hamstring the government if it is trying to do something unconstituional.

The point of the constitution is to provide a decent government.

In order to protect the people from the government, it was set up to play the three branches off each other, to weaken the ability of the government to become tyrannical.

220 years of clever politicians has worked to weaken the separation of powers, and massive economic success has raised the stakes for massive corruption.

The Founders were well aware of human nature, and those who believe that humanity has advanced into something angelic are living in a fantasy world. Unless balance is restored, that fantasy will present as a totalitarian nightmare.

Already cynical and depraved thugs have worked their will on several of the united States, and used the organs of information distribution to hide what they have done. These thugs have gained power not with clubs and mobs, but with fountain pens, looting the treasures of the nation, and eroding its freedoms.

As their actions are exposed, they are fighting back with clubs and mobs, and distorting the truth, playing the death march of liberty on their huge propaganda organ.

As those who remember what this nation once was, and should be, fade into oblivion, the next generation or two will experience the rotting from within, and the first great exemplar of human freedom on this Earth will perish.

if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
-George Orwell

Rack&Roll · Nov 20, 2018

/\ /\ Boom.

Thus endeth the lesson.

esqappellate · Nov 20, 2018

jkeys said:
Wow, this decision can't be left to stand. It says that the state can confiscate any property it wants without compensation, except real estate. That is a huge assertion by this judge. If it weren't for the gun aspect I would be shocked if the ACLU wouldn't be interested in helping to fight that.

Here is the issue. This decision is wrong, of that I have no doubt. But the decision is not binding precedent on any legal point, not in other cases in district court, much less in the court of appeals. If we appeal, we may lose, in which case the Takings analysis becomes binding precedent in the 4th Circuit everywhere. The court's decision here was obviously influenced by Las Vegas and the pending regulations that the ATF will be announcing soon that will (wrongly) deem these "devices" to be machineguns. Litigation over the ATF rule will take years and there is no guarantee that plaintiffs will win that litigation either. In short, Bumpstocks have become the basis for legal and emotional hysteria. Meanwhile, the MD GA will be busy banning everything and anything it wants, including other items of personal property arguably more important than bumpstocks. So where do we spend resources (MSI is not Bloomberg)? What sort of case do we want to go to the mat on that may lead to binding precedent? On bumpstocks with this legal and emotional overhang, or on litigating the next case where the MD GA bans possession of something they don't like?

Not_an_outlaw · Nov 20, 2018

Is it more economical to continue with appealing this case, or start anew when the magazine bans start coming?

Also, magazine bans my get better funding.

fabsroman · Nov 20, 2018

esqappellate said:
Here is the issue. This decision is wrong, of that I have no doubt. But the decision is not binding precedent on any legal point, not in other cases in district court, much less in the court of appeals. If we appeal, we may lose, in which case the Takings analysis becomes binding precedent in the 4th Circuit everywhere. The court's decision here was obviously influenced by Law Vegas and the pending regulations that the ATF will be announcing soon that will (wrongly) deem these "devices" to be machineguns. Litigation over the ATF rule will take years and there is no guarantee that plaintiffs will win that litigation either. In short, Bumpstocks have become the basis for legal and emotional hysteria. Meanwhile, the MD GA will be busy banning everything and anything it wants, including other items of personal property arguably more important than bumpstocks. So where do we spend resources (MSI is not Bloomberg)? What sort of case do we want to go to the mat on that may lead to binding precedent? On bumpstocks with this legal and emotional overhang, or on litigating the next case where the MD GA bans possession of something they don't like?

Yeah, could not have said it better myself. Don't really think this is the case to try to take all the way to SCOTUS. Too many people that don't care about firearms in this nation, and even fewer that care about bumpstocks, binary triggers, etc., or even have a clue how they work.

We want the emotion for a case to be on the opposite end of this, where people are outraged that they are banning something without compensating people. Heck, it might not even be a firearm case that puts some additional teeth in the Takings Clause.

fabsroman · Nov 20, 2018

Not_an_outlaw said:
Is it more economical to continue with appealing this case, or start anew when the magazine bans start coming?

Also, magazine bans my get better funding.

Pretty sure the money would be rolling in if they propose a magazine ban.

Blacksmith101 · Nov 20, 2018

Let the never give an inch camp fight this one and conserve MSI's expertise and limited resources for the looming more important fights on the horizon.

dogbone · Nov 20, 2018

Inspector1489 said:
It's time to hasten my exit from this place.

Thank you MSI for all of your ongoing efforts.

Take every lesson you learned about fighting this stupid BS with you. You will need it in your new home. The anti-rights bills pre-filed for the next Texas legislative session make me think I'm back in Maryland.

fidelity · Nov 20, 2018

I was alluding to this upthread after the recent ruling. Save money for other fights (like a mag possession ban). We won't get a reasonable ruling on the bump stock issue, and the NRA as well as Trump (cited by the judge) didn't help by expressing ambivalence about their legality early on. I'm glad MSI gave it a shot, as well as provided something of practical utility with the ATF template letter to seek the one year possession extension.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

GolfR · Nov 20, 2018

Thank you to MSI for trying to fight this stupid law. While it disheartens me to admit defeat, I think time and resources will be much better spent fighting the 10+ magazine possession ban that is surely coming for a vote in the next assembly. While CA's ban is still tied up, NJs has gone into full affect which will do nothing but embolden the MD lawmakers to make a run at it. It will surely be passed this year and we MUST stop it.

ironpony · Nov 21, 2018

So if the Trump administration gets the BS reclassified and banned is that effectively a win against the Obama administration who gave us the BS, and heck, the brace?

Not trying to change the subject but it was a temporary good feeling when we got Hogan (R) and now we just lost against something Trump (R) wants to take away too. Crazy times, but when the swamp is drained there will be bump stocks found at the bottom.
ICBW.

BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

όυ φροντισ

R.I.P

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics