Entrapment? Yea or Nay?

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!
  • RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,187
    Has anyone considered suing the ATF for Entrapment.

    THEY...
    • Reviewed and APPROVED an item for manufacture and sale to U S Citizens.
    • Ruled on the item and issued legal documents to assure the buyers, manufacturers, and retailers that the item was in fact lawful to purchase and possess.
    • Created a situation where thousands of law abiding citizens then... trusting their word as a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and the ultimate authority on the legality of said item... purchased and began using the item.

    THEN IF THEY...

    • Issued a “new legal opinion” which effectively created thousands of law violators out of persons who had done nothing more that trust them to know whether or not the item was in fact lawful to purchase and possess.

    THEN THEY...

    • Have ENTRAPPED thousands of U S Citizens in a scheme which caused those citizens to become law violators by possessing an item which they had lawfully purchased.
    • Have caused financial injury to the manufacturers, retailers, and purchasers... for which they offer no recompense.

    Now... I don’t really give two sharts about bumpfire stocks... I never liked paying that much money for something I can accomplish with a thumb in a belt loop.

    HOW FREEKIN EVER... I DO GAF about rights of citizens to not be entrapped in a scheme where they spend good hard earned resources on any item which a Federal LEA DOCUMENTED as LAWFUL... and... now says OOOPS THOSE THINGS ARE SCARY... GIVE THEM UP OR YOU CAN GO TO JAIL... AND... NO... WE ARE NOT GIVING YOUR MONEY BACK TO YOU AFTER YOU SPENT IT ON OUR SAY SO.

    Mr. Lawyer for the People,
    What say ye? :cool:
     

    TheCognacWest

    Member
    Nov 4, 2018
    5
    I think because the DOJ is offering a 3 month period when you can dispose of the bump stock the case would fall apart and lead into a 5th amendment territory. If the ban was implemented and effective immediately the case would be stronger imo but because they are giving you a chance to comply.. entrapment would be hard to argue.
    But hey.. I’m not a lawyer
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,736
    Socialist State of Maryland
    I think because the DOJ is offering a 3 month period when you can dispose of the bump stock the case would fall apart and lead into a 5th amendment territory. If the ban was implemented and effective immediately the case would be stronger imo but because they are giving you a chance to comply.. entrapment would be hard to argue.
    But hey.. I’m not a lawyer

    That may well be but the owners aren't being compensated for the stocks. Isn't that a "taking" by the government?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    In entrapment, the State actually induces someone to commit an act that they were otherwise not predisposed to do. I would think in the case of bump stocks, you'd need to prove that you had no interest in buying one until ATF not only said it was okay, but went out of its way to convince you that you needed one.

    That said, I can't understand how someone charged with possession could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of machine gun possession if the Government itself is well documented as internally conflicted over whether the stocks meet the legal definition of machine gun. But I'm not willing to be the funding source, nor defendant, for the test case.
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    Zero “entrapment” foundation to sue because there is no fraud, just complaints that an overreaching bureaucracy has changed the rules.

    I have great faith in the GOA/FPC/VCDL lawsuit to throw a wrench into the gears of this action—and even win.

    Count me among those that see the NFA law as the ORIGINAL infringement.

    That’s said, I predict that the lawsuits—if they don’t completely block the bump stock ban—could result in grandfathering and inclusion into the AOW registry where bump stock owners file for $5.

    That will moot the takings outcry—which is weak— because it is not a classic “taking” but a ban on possession the way the way drug paraphernalia used to be legal but is now a possession crime.

    By some estimate there are a hundreds of thousands of bump stocks in circulation with millions of dollars invested by this class of owners.

    So, as much as I believe bump stocks can’t be regulated or outlawed, I think the AOW registry is where this is headed.

    Final thought: anyone here who continues to comment that bump stocks are anything other than a LEGITIMATE choice of accessory for firearm owners is a gutless pillow fighter when it comes to standing for 2A.

    Shame!
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,541
    People act like this is the first thing the Government allowed, then prohibited. Entrapment is laughable. Where did ATF twist anyone's arm to buy a bumpstock?

    Grandfather them in, or compensate. How can there be any other way...I don't see it. It's thief by the government.

    Delaware was paying $100 for a bumpstock and $15 for a GAT , of course DE residents only. They had a $15K pool, no idea how many took the offer.

    ATF addressed this in their final rule. Needless to say, they disagree that it’s entrapment.

    Any lawyer as well.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,192
    Davidsonville
    Realistically, given the current make up of the courts, if a verdict were to be given today, no, do not collect $200 (stamp price), do not pass go, go directly to jail.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,884
    Randall Weaver was Entrapped , but that involves specific actions by Gov't Agents ( larger legal meanings, not employment titles ) in the course of an investigation .

    The Ex Post Facto issue is addressed in post #2 .

    2A, 5A , etc issues are flagrant . Better legal minds than me are rolling on this, and are figuring their strategies of which to addres in which order .
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    I don't think you have grounds for entrapment as the previous administration, reviewed and approved the item for manufacture and sale to U S Citizens. And then issued legal documents to assure the buyers, manufacturers, and retailers that the item was in fact lawful to purchase and possess. I don't believe that the GOA/FPC/VCDL lawsuit will be successful based on the ground they are suing on as Matthew Whitaker is for all purposes the US Attorney General and the review was conducted prior to his appointment. Could it throw a wrench into the gears of this action, possibly. I think the suit would have more traction on the grounds ATF has deviated from it original ruling, failed the public trust by failing to allow owners to be grandfathered and/or register these devices, or financially compensate the owner for the original cost of the device. In short should be treated like sound suppressors or similar to the NFA Tax Stamp.
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,541
    IANAL, haven't read the filing yet. I'm kind of puzzled that something legal can be made illegal without legislators. I had always assumed NRA's move to get this away from congress was the right one. People here really need to focus on overall public sentiment, and even the majority of R voters backed banning these. If it went to congress at that time, odds were good they'd of banned them, especially when Trump already blessed it. Hell, the Republicans in congress could stand on a soapbox agreeing with the President on this. Maybe this suit delves in to an agency can't make laws?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    I don't believe that the GOA/FPC/VCDL lawsuit will be successful based on the ground they are suing on as Matthew Whitaker is for all purposes the US Attorney General and the review was conducted prior to his appointment.

    That's not the way GOV policy or regulation works. It doesn't matter who conducted the analysis or drafted the reg (staff, contractors, random people on the street), all that counts in the end is whose signature is on the final document. That person must have the lawful authority to do so in order for the policy or regulation to be valid and enforceable. And if the court finds that Whittaker did not have that authority at the time he signed it, the reg is invalid.
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    That's not the way GOV policy or regulation works. It doesn't matter who conducted the analysis or drafted the reg (staff, contractors, random people on the street), all that counts in the end is whose signature is on the final document. That person must have the lawful authority to do so in order for the policy or regulation to be valid and enforceable. And if the court finds that Whittaker did not have that authority at the time he signed it, the reg is invalid.

    The question regarding Whittaker being a valid interm appointee has already gone thru the wringer. Unless you saying an interm appointee can't make decisions, which I still think has no merit.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,187
    Zero “entrapment” foundation to sue because there is no fraud, just complaints that an overreaching bureaucracy has changed the rules.

    I have great faith in the GOA/FPC/VCDL lawsuit to throw a wrench into the gears of this action—and even win.

    Count me among those that see the NFA law as the ORIGINAL infringement.

    That’s said, I predict that the lawsuits—if they don’t completely block the bump stock ban—could result in grandfathering and inclusion into the AOW registry where bump stock owners file for $5.

    That will moot the takings outcry—which is weak— because it is not a classic “taking” but a ban on possession the way the way drug paraphernalia used to be legal but is now a possession crime.

    By some estimate there are a hundreds of thousands of bump stocks in circulation with millions of dollars invested by this class of owners.

    So, as much as I believe bump stocks can’t be regulated or outlawed, I think the AOW registry is where this is headed.

    Final thought: anyone here who continues to comment that bump stocks are anything other than a LEGITIMATE choice of accessory for firearm owners is a gutless pillow fighter when it comes to standing for 2A.

    Shame!

    I haven’t seen anyone state that bump fire stocks are “not legitimate accessories”. :shrug:

    Make no mistake... There are many legitimate things which I personally have no use for or simply don’t like. That does NOT in any way cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the item.

    The idea of a court case against the ATF... was a question about legal action to stop or at the least delay the move to a federal ban... until something can be found to address the issue of loss for the manufacturers, retailers, and purchasers who are faced with financial injury because of an unfair action which is based on nothing more than feelings against these “scary” bump stocks.

    The FED LEA told folks “Yes you may do this.”
    Folks spent money doing it.
    Now the FED LEA says “You can’t do this.”
    I think that may... (even though not necessarily the original intention...) be a bait and switch which is now trapping people in a no win situation.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Zero “entrapment” foundation to sue because there is no fraud, just complaints that an overreaching bureaucracy has changed the rules.

    I have great faith in the GOA/FPC/VCDL lawsuit to throw a wrench into the gears of this action—and even win.

    Count me among those that see the NFA law as the ORIGINAL infringement.

    That’s said, I predict that the lawsuits—if they don’t completely block the bump stock ban—could result in grandfathering and inclusion into the AOW registry where bump stock owners file for $5.

    That will moot the takings outcry—which is weak— because it is not a classic “taking” but a ban on possession the way the way drug paraphernalia used to be legal but is now a possession crime.

    By some estimate there are a hundreds of thousands of bump stocks in circulation with millions of dollars invested by this class of owners.

    So, as much as I believe bump stocks can’t be regulated or outlawed, I think the AOW registry is where this is headed.

    Final thought: anyone here who continues to comment that bump stocks are anything other than a LEGITIMATE choice of accessory for firearm owners is a gutless pillow fighter when it comes to standing for 2A.

    Shame!


    Yep. Agree 100%
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,319
    Entrapment? No, that would require deliberate intent on the part of ATF. They can show clean hands on this one, the change in the classification of bump stocks was dictated from above. If anything, I suspect ATF advised against it (behind the scenes).

    2A violation maybe. 5A taking violation, definitely. Ex post facto law, certainly.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,934
    Messages
    7,259,584
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom