BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

Abulg1972 said:

You guys have no understanding of the law, the world, or reality. This isn’t the Wild West. Things have progressed significantly since the 1800s.

Click to expand...

• Bullets
• Brass
• Primers
• Powder

This class action lawsuit challenges the newly enacted SB 707 on five grounds. First, by prohibiting the continued possession of or the exercise of other property rights in existing “rapid fire trigger activators” by Plaintiffs and class members without any compensation or authorization of any compensation, SB 707 facially violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Second, and independently, by prohibiting the continued possession of existing “rapid fire trigger activators” by Plaintiffs and class members and further prohibiting the sale, the offering for sale, transfer or receipt of such existing “rapid fire trigger activators” without any compensation or authorization of any compensation, SB 707 facially violates the Takings Clause of Article III, § 40, of the Maryland Constitution (“Takings Clause of the Maryland Constitution”). Third, by authorizing continued possession of existing “rapid fire trigger activators” after October 1, 2018, only where the owner has applied for “authorization” from the BATF by October 1, 2018 and received such “authorization” from the BATF by October 1, 2019, SB 707 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing a condition with which it is legally impossible for Plaintiffs and class members to comply. Under Maryland law, these BATF provisions of SB 707 are not severable from the rest of SB 707 and thus the entirety of SB 707 must be declared unconstitutional. Fourth, in banning “any device” that increases “the rate of fire” by any amount, and in failing to define “installed in or attached to a firearm,” or a “binary trigger system or burst trigger system or a copy or a similar device,” SB 707 is so vague that it does not provide “fair notice of the conduct” of the conduct it proscribes. These terms fail to “provide standards to govern the actions of police officers, prosecutors, juries, and judges” and thus will impermissibly lead to the risk of “arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement” in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fifth, by retroactively abolishing vested property rights of Plaintiffs and class members in presently owned “rapid fire trigger activators” Defendant has violated Article 24 of the Maryland Constitution.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

This is where logic goes off the rail. Whether I think that I should be allowed to own something has no relevance to whether the government is legally entitled to restrict my ownership.

One of the things that feeds anti-gun nuts is the gun enthusiast’s blind devotion to “Murica!”

We have no constitutional right to own a piece of plastic that itself is not a “firearm”. You can sit back in your La-Z-Boy while watching Live PD and pontificate to the contrary, but the fact is that we don’t.

Click to expand...

44man said:

So I guess your ok with md banning this plastic tv remote sitting here by my lazy boy since it’s not a firearm

You sound just like frosh, everything he doesn’t like is unconstitutional and va is the wild Wild West because they give away ccw’s

Fvck anti gun nuts because
MURICA

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

If you think bump stocks are out (outside of 2A protection), where, and far more importantly HOW do you draw the line? Let's look at the following list:

Magazines
Ammunition
Discrete ammo components:

• Bullets
• Brass
• Primers
• Powder

Reloading equipment
Scopes
..and so on.

Carry this discussion to 1A's freedom of the press. How about:
The press (machine)
Ink
Paper
Typesetting equipment (ok, I'm old)
Access to power brokers (gotta have something to write about)

All of these things have tentacles that extend beyond a simple, one-dimensional analysis or direct reading of the BOR to provide some sort of dispositive list of what is in and what is out. There are necessary enabling technologies or actions that make it possible to exercise the enumerated rights.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

It’s unfortunate that our message and arguments are made less meaningful by people who don’t understand what the law does and does not protect and who, as a result, make all sorts of wild claims.

Although I certainly do not want the government to tell me that I may no longer own a DirecTV remote control, I fully admit that I have no constitutional right to own one.

I will simply ask this question, and I will wait with bated breath for an answer - what part of MSI’s complaint asserts that Maryland’s bump stock ban is unconstitutional because the 2A protects our right to own one?

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

I didn't raise TV remotes. If you are inclined, take a look at some examples of firearms related hardware, and discuss where it is and how is the line drawn (a rule need to be stated) to determine why something is in or out.

Ammo is necessary to a functioning arm. A bump stock is not, but neither is a scope. Are scopes also potentially out? Must something be indispensable to a protected right, but something that is "only" an enhancement or aid out?

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

It’s unfortunate that our message and arguments are made less meaningful by people who don’t understand what the law does and does not protect and who, as a result, make all sorts of wild claims.

Although I certainly do not want the government to tell me that I may no longer own a DirecTV remote control, I fully admit that I have no constitutional right to own one.

I will simply ask this question, and I will wait with bated breath for an answer - what part of MSI’s complaint asserts that Maryland’s bump stock ban is unconstitutional because the 2A protects our right to own one?

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

It’s unfortunate that our message and arguments are made less meaningful by people who don’t understand what the law does and does not protect and who, as a result, make all sorts of wild claims.

Although I certainly do not want the government to tell me that I may no longer own a DirecTV remote control, I fully admit that I have no constitutional right to own one.

I will simply ask this question, and I will wait with bated breath for an answer - what part of MSI’s complaint asserts that Maryland’s bump stock ban is unconstitutional because the 2A protects our right to own one?

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

I assure you that I am fully informed.

Click to expand...

44man said:

First, are you Brian frosh?

Second Eruby is a fine very intelligent man who understands much more than you know

Third the 2a in md has nearly been destroyed by people using progressive ******** excuses

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Not any part. Because that is a really hard argument in this Circuit, which has already held that so called assault weapons are entirely outside the Second Amendment (Kolbe). The Takings Clause argument is, however, much harder for the State to deal with. Bringing suit is one thing. It is important to at least have a decent shot at winning them.

Click to expand...

44man said:

Did you read somewhere that I said it did? I do not believe so



Now since we are asking questions, since I can do as good of or better job at bump firing my ar’s by wrapping my thumb into my shirt or with a stick or a couple rubber bands, or just by bracing myself and pushing with my fire end are and holding tight with my trigger hand, will the government be making these things illegal or am I within my rights to have these things , including my hands arms and fingers?



Do you dislike the fact that I can fire my weapon fast with these things?



Does me being able to fire my weapon this fast without a bump stock still make this the wild Wild West Mr frosh?

Click to expand...

whistlersmother said:

Oy... The Crown called and wants their subject back.



And with that thinking, I assure you that you are fully a subject of the Crown. Perhaps you would do better in the European aristocracy that our founding fathers chose to kick to the curb?



The Constitution grants powers to the United States. Those not granted are reserved to the States or the people. Your "right" to own a TV remote has always been yours - its not bestowed upon you by the government. Your "right" to own a bump stock has always been yours. Likewise with any firearms, NFA and GCA'68 not withstanding. The 2A explicitly states the United States may not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Our history is littered with examples showing the 2A is NOT in the government's interest, and thus we now have odious restrictions to the 2A. And apparently, those restrictions have entered the "psyche" of a nation.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

No. You misapprehend the issue.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

I promise you that I am not the enemy of the state. I am a gun lover, a gun enthusiast, a person whose ex-wife has tried to strip him of his constitutional rights, and I also happen to be lawyer who fully understands these issues. You can assail me all you want. I know where’d we stand and where we don’t. I understand that these are emotional issues, but I also appreciate where the limits lie. Good night to all of you, my friends.

Click to expand...

Stoveman said:

I'm not sure what part of "Shall Not Infringe" is pushing limits but in case you haven't noticed counselor we as Americans have a history of pushing limits. If we hadn't there would be no Boston Tea Party, Trenton, Vicksburg or Pointe du Hoc.



Did Rosa Parks really need to sit at the front of the bus? Do women really need to vote? Do we really need to own property?

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

Sir. A plastic accessory is not a firearm. The fact that you inbreds don’t understand this is disconcerting.

Click to expand...