esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I'm proud to be an MSI member and will continue to be one.
Thank you!
I'm proud to be an MSI member and will continue to be one.
I would have to dig my box and materials out from Storage, but I believe the ATF letter is not only a copy but what I was provided was a miniaturized version of the letter – – about the size of a very large postcard.
But yes, whether full-size or half-size, I will call my enclosed ATF letter to be exactly this, as shown in the PDF
where is this right now?
Very different issue.
Very different issue.
Agreed.
The state has law in place to prevent localities from regulating firearms. The judge approached the case as purely an issue of preemption.
To quote from Judge Cain's ruling:
"... It is solely about whether Columbus has the authority to enact the Ordinances. That is all there is."
Columbus tried to argue that a Bump Stock is an accessory and they had the authority to ban an accessory. State law permits possession of "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition." The judge didn't buy the accessory argument - he ruled that a stock - even an enhanced stock - is still a component of a firearm. Therefore he concludes that Columbus lacks the authority to ban what the state law permits.
To again quote from the ruling:
"... It is clear that a bump stop is a component of a firearm. Since this is so, the Bump-Stock Ban forbids something that state law allows, i.e. ownership of firearm components. The Bump-Stock Ban is in conflict with R.C 9.88."
Where this could have gone wrong is if the judge had agreed that a Bump-Stock is an accessory and not a component - and that Columbus had the ability to regulate an accessory. A different judge could have gone another way. And i suppose a appeals court just might.
Clear as mud.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer.
Do tell.
Rack: I would love to see a scan of your original. Thanks!
Thanks for the explanation. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer.
The issue in Maryland is an unconstitutional taking because the law doesn’t provide for just compensation to everyone who purchased a bump stock prior to the effective date of the Law. The issue in the Ohio case was whether a local government could do what state law said it couldn’t. Maryland certainly has the power to prohibit a bump stock, but it has to pay to exercise that power.