BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

j_h_smith · Nov 17, 2018

cantstop said:
I don't know. I'm going to lose my bump stock because of this. I just don't know if it makes sense for MSI to continue to spend their limited resources on this issue.

I skimmed through the pdf and it looks like the folks at the MGA wrote this ruling and handed it to the judge to sign. I don't think we will ever get a fair trial in MD.

If other states had reversed or had proven in the courts that their bump stock bans were illegal, I'd say go for the appeal. But I it's probably a bad investment of time and money. Of course I'm not involved in actual litigation and am not aware of all of the wrangling that takes place, but I've got a funny feeling we're going to need a lot of money and time after the MGA session.

Where are the billionaire Right Wingers when it comes to cases like these? The Left doesn't seem to lack the financial backing for their lawsuits, where is the help from the Right?

fabsroman · Nov 17, 2018

ironpony said:
I am guessing there is a better battle to fight (court) but by the time the correct fight reaches SCOTUS we will be down to sticks and stones. This ruling makes one think of the 2013 AR ban, there are what about 50 items one may attach to a rifle and they banned most of them by saying one may only use three at a time, therefore, in effect, banning 47 items. A win.

As for the Tree of Liberty one CA Dem says they are ready just last night The Washington Times

So mentioned are a couple options
1. Figure out how to fight the NFA/Machine gun ban
2. Prepare for another "Hydraulically Assisted" Kick to the nut sack then try to fight.

The bigger issue with FSA 2013 is that it banned something like 35 types of firearms, not mere firearm attachments/accessories and SCOTUS at the time declined to hear the case. I would like SCOTUS to come up with some clarification on what a commonly used firearm is. Me, I would go with anything that is used by the military or law enforcement. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from tyranny. Yes, it is there to protect us from John Doe the crack head, but mainly it is there to protect us from tyranny.

I am pretty tired of the 2nd Amendment being reduced little by little by a thousand pieces of legislation and a thousand cases of litigation. Then again, that is the same BS that is going on with the other Amendments too. The older this country gets, the more "interpretation" there will be of the Constitution.

fabsroman · Nov 17, 2018

fidelity said:
The judge also started his ruling with this sentence ...

"On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a concert crowd in Las Vegas. In the span of barely ten minutes, the attacker unleashed hundreds of rounds of ammunition, killing 58 people and injuring more than 850."

... which suggested bias to me because of the lack of clarity. Although it was obviously a horrific crime committed by a disturbed individual with significant financial resources, gunfire directly resulted in 420 something nonfatal injuries. Just over half of the 850 total injuries did not involve gunshot wounds.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Yep, once then opinion starts with that type of BS, you already know where it is going. Now, had it started with "The 2nd Amendment being an Amendment to protect us from tyranny .........", things would have been looking good.

ironpony · Nov 17, 2018

How are the judges who rule on a particular case chosen?

In litigation the 2A always seems to be on the defense, is there ever an offensive play? In the courts that is.

fabsroman · Nov 17, 2018

fidelity said:
Rhetorical questions - What is the accepted convention to define magazine capacity? When does something become "large-capacity"? Obviously states can arbitrarily assign capacity regulations based on no evidence to support claims that there is a significant public benefit. It would be wonderful if the ATF or some professional entity could authoritatively comment that the standard capacity of a firearm magazine is defined by the firearm manufacturer and reflects what is issued to law enforcement and the military when they procure that firearm. Then judges like this can argue that the public is not entitled to standard capacity (or military capacity as some might move to calling it).

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I think a standard capacity mag is whatever allows the firearm to be used effectively. Something that does not make it extremely heavy when loaded, but something that gives it the firepower it was designed for.

The reasoning for banning mag capacity is because it makes the firearms more lethal. So, by banning mag capacity, they are destroying the design and effectiveness of the firearms. Same can be said about banning "accessories". Scopes, red dots, and iron sights make firearms more effective than aiming down a barrell, and they are integral to a firearn, as mags and mag capacity are integral to modern firearms.

fabsroman · Nov 17, 2018

ironpony said:
How are the judges who rule on a particular case chosen?

In litigation the 2A always seems to be on the defense, is there ever an offensive play? In the courts that is.

An offensive play would be in a pro 2A state where they pass gun control litigation just to get the case in front of the judiciary where it can be struck down and cause a division among the Circuits that would compel SCOTUS to take the case. Maybe something like FSA 2013 being passed in North Dakota just to test the federal court system.

whistlersmother · Nov 17, 2018

All this talk about "what is the definition of standard" is BS and HS. By the 2A, there is no need for such a definition.

A thousand paper cuts begins by playing their game and using their definitions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

fabsroman · Nov 17, 2018

whistlersmother said:
All this talk about "what is the definition of standard" is BS and HS. By the 2A, there is no need for such a definition.

A thousand paper cuts begins by playing their game and using their definitions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is all a "game". Granted, a life threatening game. They start the game off by passing legislation and then throwing gun owners in prison.

eruby · Nov 17, 2018

The judge told MSI to get it's shine box.

Schipperke · Nov 17, 2018

fabsroman said:
I think a standard capacity mag is whatever allows the firearm to be used effectively. Something that does not make it extremely heavy when loaded, but something that gives it the firepower it was designed for.

The reasoning for banning mag capacity is because it makes the firearms more lethal. So, by banning mag capacity, they are destroying the design and effectiveness of the firearms. Same can be said about banning "accessories". Scopes, red dots, and iron sights make firearms more effective than aiming down a barrell, and they are integral to a firearn, as mags and mag capacity are integral to modern firearms.

.. the duly elected legislators decide it is. All the semantics of standard, large, Hi-capacity gets spelled out as number of rounds the legislators decide it is. For "public safety" and the "common good". Court cites Kolbe as binding here, and reads (finding no Second Amendment protection for large-capacity magazines). Reading the ruling, it appears 2A rights by plaintiff never entered the picture? However much Ruger was loathed decades ago for his magazine limit argument, he did so with the intent so no specific type of firearm could then be scrutinized more deadly and subject to banning. He may have been on to something.

fidelity · Nov 17, 2018

A disturbed man with one Mini-14 and no bump stock in Norway killed more than the Vegas shooter who brought 30+ firearms. Not sure if the Norway shooter use Ruger mags or after markets. Of course, we're swapping anecdotes amongst ourselves when those pushing for the banning don't care for counterexamples. The strongest indication that they are limiting citizen rights is that they won't place the same restriction on government (which doesn't have rights, only powers that we grant it). And why, because then it would impair public safety. Duh.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Nov 17, 2018

fabsroman said:
The bumpstock ban wasn't to test the court's waters. The plaintiff's decided to test the court's waters by filing the lawsuit. Now, we know where the court stands on the Takings Clause. Tens of people surprised by this decision. Anybody that followed Kolbe should not be shocked by this.

As I have previously said, there is enough on both sides of the Takings Clause to support whichever way a court wants to go. However, the justification in the ruling made a lot of sense to me. How can anything ever be banned if it is considered a Takings Clause violation. For instance, if somebody can cook up a nuclear bomb in their backyard, should we not ban then possession of the device because it would violate the Takings Clause?

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.

Also, with the invention of the internet and the ability to sell stuff all over the country, it is somewhat tough to argue the Takings Clause on a bumpstock when the bumpstock can be readily sold before the ban goes into effect. I will admit that I stopped reading the opinion at page 13. I can only stomach so much of this tripe at a time, and that was my limit for today. Maybe in the morning with a cup of coffee and a fresh start to the day, I can finish off the other 20 pages or so.

It is not really how the court feels about the Takings Clause, it is currently one judges opinion. A very biased Judge if you ask me. The courts are divided over the issue.

He made a straw man argument that the takings clause would prevent bans. It simply requires just compensation if the government wants me to get rid of something I currently have. I don't believe the plaintiffs challenged the ban, they just challenged the taking without just compensation. Currently the issue gets side stepped by grandfathering the item.

It is usually easier to ban the action rather than actually take the item. In you example of nuclear weapons, you don't need to actually ban or take the weapon. This is because of the health hazards and expenses associated with the making of a nuclear weapon. If you regulate the actions you effectively prevent something happening without actually taking something. MD could have done it this way without actually taking items.

K3LAG · Nov 17, 2018

ironpony said:
Detachable magazines this session?

That was my thought as I read it.

Mark75H · Nov 17, 2018

ironpony said:
Detachable magazines this session?

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
Nailed it here.

Nah, this session wil be ammo and 80%'s like MD West, er, CommieFornia

Doctor_M · Nov 17, 2018

Mark75H said:
Nah, this session wil be ammo and 80%'s like MD West, er, CommieFornia

They will not limit themselves to one or two infringements... they are looking to squeeze us dry of our liberty.

ironpony · Nov 17, 2018

Doctor_M said:
They will not limit themselves to one or two infringements... they are looking to squeeze us dry of our liberty.

Chicken Dinner

44man · Nov 17, 2018

Mark75H said:
Nah, this session wil be ammo and 80%'s like MD West, er, CommieFornia

Lawn chair Larry has opened the door for the mga to take whatever they want from is now.

He’s asking for common sense gun control, Democrat code for ass raping gun owners, so I think the will go for broke the next two sessions and lawn chair Larry will sign whatever they send his way

Zorros · Nov 18, 2018

A little late to this discussion, but the judge did not reach the merits, meaning the 2A issues. He ruled that the plaintiffs were not about to suffer irreperable harm because they could apply for a wiaver and buy a year in which the law would be challenged. Cts will not decide constituional issues if they have another way around the matter.
I was involved in Kolbe for three decisions. Reagardless of what this judge ultimately does, and i have won preliminary injunctions before him, the 4th cir will not find the state ban unconstitutional. And while you might disagree with me, this is not the case to waste an opportunity on before the s ct.
bans on cc and ar type rifles are more important to challenge and have a greater chance of success before that ct.

fabsroman · Nov 18, 2018

Zorros said:
A little late to this discussion, but the judge did not reach the merits, meaning the 2A issues. He ruled that the plaintiffs were not about to suffer irreperable harm because they could apply for a wiaver and buy a year in which the law would be challenged. Cts will not decide constituional issues if they have another way around the matter.
I was involved in Kolbe for three decisions. Reagardless of what this judge ultimately does, and i have won preliminary injunctions before him, the 4th cir will not find the state ban unconstitutional. And while you might disagree with me, this is not the case to waste an opportunity on before the s ct.
bans on cc and ar type rifles are more important to challenge and have a greater chance of success before that ct.

Were you one of the attorneys in Kolbe? I attended the District Court hearing for Kolbe and actually read that opinion.

I only read the first 12 pages or so of this opinion and did not see where the court had punted the case because the plaintiffs had not suffered irreparable harm. However, now that you mention it I can see that being the case. The court decided on standing early on in the opinion and nixed MSI as a plaintiff because of it, without either party even bringing up the issue of standing. Would have thought that the court would have just addressed irreparable harm early on and never even gotten to the discussion of the Takings Clause. Guess I will have to read the other 20 pages at some point.

I agree though, we would need a miracle for the 4th Circuit to rule in our favor on this issue. Money would be better spent on laws the General Assembly decides to pass going forward.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Nov 18, 2018

fabsroman said:
Were you one of the attorneys in Kolbe? I attended the District Court hearing for Kolbe and actually read that opinion.

I only read the first 12 pages or so of this opinion and did not see where the court had punted the case because the plaintiffs had not suffered irreparable harm. However, now that you mention it I can see that being the case. The court decided on standing early on in the opinion and nixed MSI as a plaintiff because of it, without either party even bringing up the issue of standing. Would have thought that the court would have just addressed irreparable harm early on and never even gotten to the discussion of the Takings Clause. Guess I will have to read the other 20 pages at some point.

I agree though, we would need a miracle for the 4th Circuit to rule in our favor on this issue. Money would be better spent on laws the General Assembly decides to pass going forward.

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.

BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Active Member

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

Certified Mad Scientist

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics