BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

East2West said:

Lol revolution. You can't even get a majority of folks on a gun forum to stop making excuses for the trampling of our rights, there's no way you could get enough people organized for a revolt.
There will be no resistance until the government cuts off food and money. So long as folks are fat and happy and can buy the latest iPhone they'll bend over and take it with a smile. As shown by the politics of this fine state.

Click to expand...

This^^^

Heck we had thousands testify in Annapolis in 2013 against the tyrannical gun grab which was a good turnout by Maryland standards yet I think it was between 80-100K showed up for a super bowl parade. People in this state care more about bread and circuses than their constitutional rights.

Doctor_M said:

There is another thread here titled "What's your breaking point for revolution?"... I must say, it is feeling closer than ever... and it's not about bump stocks... it's about tyranny.

Click to expand...

We are getting dangerously close to a civil war my friends. The left is pushing for it. It's time for us to set aside our differences and band together.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-eric-swalwell-give-me-your-guns-or-else-i-nuke-you

esqappellate said:

Decision today. We lost. Attached. We are considering our appeal options. A notice of appeal is due in 30 days. Needless to say, we do not agree with the Court's decision.

Click to expand...

Bump!



This is BS!

$20 kicked in just now to fight this legal travesty some more.

Where's AOB? That's right, he was sent to banned camp!

Has there been a definition of Bump Stock anywhere that would preclude household items.

whistlersmother said:

Yep. With no compensation and 5 year felony conviction on possession.

Bump stock was to "test" the court waters.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

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.

Slice how you want it, but after seeing the court uphold the ban over the Takings Clause, the MGA now has a template for further bans - magazines are one of the favored items. I believe the MGA were wary in the past about a full ban on magazines, but now that bump stock ban has been upheld, the MGA will be quite emboldened. And, of course, Lawn Chair Larry will be asking them to do it.

Rhetorically, will you be turning over your SBE's when semi-auto shotguns are banned?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Some people need to pay closer attention to history, most revolutions and most wars start small and then grow. Not everyone is on board when the first incident or incidents take place and I suspect that most people involved in those incidents have no idea that they are starting world changing events.

PowPow said:

I agree with the sentiment that it's a kick in the nut sack. I would add that it feels like a hydraulically-assisted kick. Appeal has to be the path forward.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not sure appealing this is the way forward unless this is not costing a crapton in legal fees. This is like the entire referendum issue in 2013. We pretty much know where the 4th circuit stands on 2A issues. It has been one loss after another there. The big question is whether this is a good case that SCOTUS will decide to hear. My guess is that it isn't. As long as the manufacture of machine guns is banned, why would they allow devices like these?

How nice would it be for Congress to get rid of the NFA and the ban on manufacturing machine guns? That would be Nirvana.

fabsroman said:

Yeah, not sure appealing this is the way forward unless this is not costing a crapton in legal fees. This is like the entire referendum issue in 2013. We pretty much know where the 4th circuit stands on 2A issues. It has been one loss after another there. The big question is whether this is a good case that SCOTUS will decide to hear. My guess is that it isn't. As long as the manufacture of machine guns is banned, why would they allow devices like these?

How nice would it be for Congress to get rid of the NFA and the ban on manufacturing machine guns? That would be Nirvana.

Click to expand...

Uh, because bump stocks do not make a machine gun?

I would submit the ban on new machine guns has led to bump stocks as a poor man's simulation of a machine gun - but not really.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

whistlersmother said:

Uh, because bump stocks do not make a machine gun?

I would submit the ban on new machine guns has led to bump stocks as a poor man's simulation of a machine gun - but not really.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yep, if a machine gun is defined as a firearm that can continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down, then these devices are not that. However, they do simulate select fire weapons, and a lot on here thought the Vegas shooter had a machine gun when they watched the video.

fabsroman said:

Yep, if a machine gun is defined as a firearm that can continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down, then these devices are not that. However, they do simulate select fire weapons, and a lot on here thought the Vegas shooter had a machine gun when they watched the video.

Click to expand...

If I thought that the LV shooter used a nuclear bomb does that make it so?

Stoveman said:

If I thought that the LV shooter used a nuclear bomb does that make it so?

Click to expand...

Only if the result was similar to a nuclear bomb and nuclear bombs were already banned from manufacture.

The result in the LV shooting was not equivalent to a nuclear bomb, but the rate of fire and sound of fire was very, very close to a select fire weapon, which is heavily regulated and banned from future manufacture since 1986.

Can the BATFE issue a regulation to prevent the manufacture of bumpstock, binary triggers, etc.? If so, this lawsuit might be a completely moot point. Think we would have a better chance of arguing that the ban on machine gun manufacture is unconstitutional since it prevents citizens from having the very weapons needed to ensure democracy going forward, which is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment in my eyes.

whistlersmother said:

Slice how you want it, but after seeing the court uphold the ban over the Takings Clause, the MGA now has a template for further bans - magazines are one of the favored items. I believe the MGA were wary in the past about a full ban on magazines, but now that bump stock ban has been upheld, the MGA will be quite emboldened. And, of course, Lawn Chair Larry will be asking them to do it.

Rhetorically, will you be turning over your SBE's when semi-auto shotguns are banned?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

MGA has been more than emboldened, they've been affirmed.

If you really dissect the ruling, you can read the Grandfathering in FSA-2013 the Judge didn't consider required. He even cites Kolbe as ruling law finding "no Second Amendment protection for large-capacity magazines"

Schipperke said:

MGA has been more than emboldened, they've been affirmed.

If you really dissect the ruling, you can read the Grandfathering in FSA-2013 the Judge didn't consider required. He even cites Kolbe as ruling law finding "no Second Amendment protection for large-capacity magazines"

Click to expand...

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

Qbeam said:

So, 10/01/19, we need to remove from the state or destroy the bump stocks?


Q

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by a bump stock.

If you mean the MD definition

“Bump Stock” is defined as “a device that, when installed in or attached to a firearm, increases the rate of fire of the firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.”
§ 4-301(F).

Click to expand...

Then I am not sure there is a device. I am not aware of any bump stock that actually uses energy from the recoil to generate a reciprocating action. It is my understanding that bump stocks require the user to supply a forward force in order to work. The recoil energy is simply used to drive the firearm backwards. The recoil energy does no work to drive the firearm forward. Since there is no reciprocating action generated from the recoil energy, any such device is not considered a bump stock under MD law.

I suspect that this misunderstanding of how a bump stock actually works is what is driving the federal ban.

the device harnesses the recoil energy to slide the firearm back and
forth so that the trigger automatically re-engages by ‘bumping’ the
shooter’s stationary trigger finger without additional physical
manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. The bump-stock-type
device functions as a self-acting and self-regulating force that
channels the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth
cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a
single pull of the trigger . . .

Click to expand...

If a bump stock was truly self-acting and self-regulating, then it would indeed be a machine gun. This is because only one pull of the trigger would fire more than one round.

In the typical bump stock the trigger IS manipulated by the shooter by them pushing forward the firearm. It requires the shooter to manipulate the firearms trigger for each round fired.

esqappellate said:

Decision today. We lost. Attached. We are considering our appeal options. A notice of appeal is due in 30 days. Needless to say, we do not agree with the Court's decision.

Click to expand...

Not a question for esqappellate, but quoting the ruling that he attached, and putting a few key points that I gathered after finally reading through it before hitting the sack ...

1) from the judge's perspective, MSI lacked standing, but the individual plantiffs didn't necessarily.

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.

And although he complained about the circular nature of an argument that protects property that the gov't decides is contraband, he puts forward a circular argument himself. He says that bump stocks are a threat to public safety because the MD legislature says they're a threat to public safety - without providing evidence of the increased danger they pose (the only citation is the Vegas MGM shooting - in which an individual had 30 some rifles and was no more lethal than the Orlando nightclub shooter who had no bump stock). Is it possible that the Vegas shooting was an anomaly? Odd that mass shooters since Vegas haven't adopted use of bump stocks (maybe because the device would diminish control when firing).

Thus if gov't simply labels an item as dangerous to the public, the courts will accept it as fact, support banning of it, and how dare you challenge on a property rights basis. So how are property rights protected if there is no standard to demonstrate potential harm or danger to the public? Going on this guy's prior riff about gun oil, then gasoline could be said to constitute a public safety risk, as would swimming pools, as would hospitals, etc.

3) The judge seemed less assertive in attacking the vagueness argument. This is consistent with comments he made in the earlier hearing. However he set it aside for when the state obviously oversteps the bump stock law and goes after other devices that increase the rate of fire. In this circumstance, he invites the plaintiffs to sue again. Peachy.

In summary, no courage from the bench whatsoever. Just a desire to go along with the state's wishes after a mock show of independence in the earlier hearing.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.