BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

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!

    • Register Log in
    Rack&Roll

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD

    Attachments

    • 488A146F-5D29-41C2-83F9-CF4CB397BCD9.jpg
      488A146F-5D29-41C2-83F9-CF4CB397BCD9.jpg
      55.5 KB · Views: 550
    Rack&Roll

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    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
     
    esqappellate

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    Rack&Roll said:
    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
    Click to expand...

    Rack: I would love to see a scan of your original. Thanks!
     
    Sticky

    Sticky

    Beware of Dog
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 16, 2013
    4,502
    AA Co
    I have the 'letter' that came with my bump stock as well... it is a small card with the letter imprinted on one side and the company logo on the other side....
     

    Attachments

    • IMG_1147.jpg
      IMG_1147.jpg
      86.7 KB · Views: 255
    Last edited:
    I

    IronEye

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 10, 2018
    796
    Howard County
    Abulg1972 said:
    Very different issue.
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    Last edited:
    teratos

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,829
    Bel Air
    IronEye said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks for the explanation. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer.
     
    I

    IronEye

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 10, 2018
    796
    Howard County
    teratos said:
    Thanks for the explanation. I'm a doctor, not a lawyer.
    Click to expand...

    I'm not a lawyer either. But the judge in his ruling wrote in English that I think I understood.

    Sure wish he would have said "Bump-Stocks are not machine guns" and the law is unconstitutional on 2nd amendments grounds instead of "state law prevents you from regulating firearms".
     
    Abulg1972

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 11, 2014
    4,234
    Somewhere south of the Manson-Nixon Line
    teratos said:
    Do tell.
    Click to expand...



    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.
     
    C

    Clifjr

    Active Member
    Feb 2, 2014
    966
    Germantown
    esqappellate said:
    Rack: I would love to see a scan of your original. Thanks!
    Click to expand...

    Sorry I’m not Rack but here is a scan of my original letter that came with my Bump Fire Systems stock if it can help. It is a two sided letter. Also I renewed my MSI membership yesterday at the Howard County gun show.
     

    Attachments

    • D79E67FC-3D37-414B-9166-D88C18342CC9.jpg
      D79E67FC-3D37-414B-9166-D88C18342CC9.jpg
      103.9 KB · Views: 299
    • 20D58E05-E4AC-4482-9EDB-C7FF466DBC6D.jpg
      20D58E05-E4AC-4482-9EDB-C7FF466DBC6D.jpg
      126.8 KB · Views: 302
    teratos

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,829
    Bel Air
    Abulg1972 said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    Damn. Oh well. No help to us. Sure hope Kavanaugh makes it to SCOTUS.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Citadel Firearms Training MD banner ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,397
    Messages
    7,280,032
    Members
    33,449
    Latest member
    Tactical Shepherd

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom