BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sb707 trigger activator
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!
Member Benefits:
fabsroman
Ultimate Member
Yeah, and when he was campaigning, he said one of the first things he would do would be to reverse BATFE Rule 41f/p. That never happened. Granted, there are good and bad things in Rule 41f/p, but it would have been nice if he removed the fingerprints for responsible persons on each Form 1 and Form 4.
https://www.nfafa.org/atf41p.cfm
I voted for Trump because he was going to nominate a SCOTUS justice and because I would have voted for him over Hillary 8 days of the week. However, I held my nose when pulling that lever. In the primaries, I voted for Carson, but Trump won Maryland anyway.
I voted for Hogan because he was way better than Jealous.
Both men suck when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Might just be the way the nation is going, complete pansy.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,735
I noted in the ruling court indicated Kolbe was binding here. It goes on to read that "large capacity magazines are not protected by 2A". The semantics of large capacity right now, is whatever legislators deem it to be. We've seen that number change too. I guess that's a court case too, but courts will probably defer to the judgement of elected legislatures what number of rounds where "large capacity" begins.
Takings gets ruled against and non compensated for "police actions" or the "public good" as in this decision. If "Large Capacity" magazines have been ruled not a protected right, they go the same way they ruled the bump stocks. Some other rationale is the state is not taking anything for itself or anyone else's monetary benefit. On the contrary, they rationalize whatever monetary loss an owner assumes, the public good (and for your own) outweighs it. Another problem is that owners can mitigate any loss by taking the item out of state, and then keep them out of state or sell them out of state where legal before the law goes in to effect. There were AR-15 bans using that rationale. Another point cited in rulings, owners of a regulated item have no guarantee it won't be regulated away. That one is really convenient.
There are counties and cities that have banned certain dog breeds. Some did not grandfather if you already owned one, and takings was tried there too. It didn't hunt. I can think of chemicals, drugs and even types of fireworks where possession is now absolutely a crime, but was legal before made a crime. I recall no compensation ever argued on those.
Your observations, alas, have the annoying ring of truth.
I am willing to bet that when Mags are banned there will be wording to the effect of "No limiting/blocking of existing mags"? So if your mag says 6 or more ... "Possession"! Yeah, I am guessing 6 will be their number and they will relate that to revolvers some how. LEO and .mil will be exempt to make it easier to pass, wish this could be struck from the law to see how it flies.
It was a fun hobby while it lasted.
It was a fun hobby while it lasted.
Yeah until the "well 30 round magazines are stupid anyway, we need to save money to fight them when they try and ban ARs" crowd comes in.
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
I'm appalled at the defeatist attitudes in this thread. Lets give up on Bump Stocks because we know they'll be coming after high cap mags. This reminds me of the hunters conundrum we talked about in years past. Since Bump Stocks aren't widely owned, they don't get the love. But isn't that just another bite out of the elephant?
It’s shocking to me also but I believe the fact that hogan has asked and received and signed gun grabbing bills into law some folks are waking up to the fact that he’s not for us nor is he neutral, he’s against us and he has called for common sense gun control and now folks are realizing what a predicament we are in and are trying to see where to circle the wagons.
The problem is we are surrounded by the enemy, the mga picked up seats and our governor is an anti.
So I guess the question is where to circle the wagons? What do we try to defend or keep?
The antis have ask to ban “ large capacity “ mags every session for a while. They want to be rid of 80’s. They want to be rid of online ammo and parts sales. They want our ar’s
So the question is what to do? Where do we circle the wagons? What will they ask for first or will they just go for the whole hog all at once??
What’s to stop them? They certainly don’t give two shytes about us and now they have hogan asking for common sense gun control so the doors open for them.
What more could they hope for? And what do we do about it?
I see why people would feel defeated
What’s appalling is being in this situation in the first place, for which we have to thank most of the voters in this state. If I’m standing at the edge of a cliff and understand gravity, my surface area, etc, and realize I WILL die if I jump, am I being defeatist about being able to fly, or simply realistic?
The risk isn’t just the waste of limited resources on a no-win appeal over bump stocks. It’s the very real threat of that loss occurring in a venue that would further, perhaps disastrously, poison the precedent well. Being cautious about that isn’t defeatism, it’s bigger-picture defeat DEFENSE in a place doing everything it can to take away every gun you own.
j_h_smith
Ultimate Member
- Jul 28, 2007
- 28,516
Nothing changed in the MGA. They still have a super majority. Once you have a majority, what's a few more seats on their side of the aisle?
If we don't circle the wagons for ANY anti 2A Bill, we might as well just let them have it all. This state has taken so many bites of the elephant, there's not much left.
Is this state a complete loss? Do we have the ability to fight anything that comes out of Annapolis? I wish I knew. But I do know one thing, once we start letting them have their wins without a fight, they have won the entire war.
Oh I agree not fighting is bad and I will continue to fight as I always have but now that the mga knows they have an ally in hogan who is already asking for common sense gun control on top of what he did last year then the mga can even more easily do what they want when they want. With hogan on their side who do we appeal to for help, not that hogan ever gave two shits about us anyways.
It does look bad, but until I leave this ******** I will do what I have always done and stand up for the 2a
So where do you draw that line?
Give up on bump stocks because of the implications of losing the appeal?
Give up on standard capacity magazines because of the implications of losing the appeal?
Give up on pistol grips because of the implications of losing the appeal?
Give up on 80s because of the implications of losing the appeal?
If you aren't fighting how can you call it defense?
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
...https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...EdxQ5Lj0F-iXV3MTiqE0IQk4FcgWPzQ&__tn__=EEHH-R
Bottom line is "We Do Not Obey".
Oh they won’t be getting anything of mine as long as I am alive
fabsroman
Ultimate Member
What was your position on the referendum on FSA2013?
Some fights are worth fighting, some are not. When a case gets to SCOTUS, you want it to be the right case that the SCOTUS justices can get behind. Don't think for a second that the SCOTUS justices do not decide cases based upon public opinion and public policy. You think taking a bumpstock challenge to SCOTUS on a Takings Clause argument would be a good thing? Once SCOTUS comes down with an opinion pertaining to the application of the Takings Clause in this type of scenario, that opinion will be precedent throughout the land, in all of the state AND federal courts. You want SCOTUS to come up with that on a bumpstock bill? I think I would prefer that a handgun ban go to SCOTUS on the Takings Clause issue.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
yep. I'd say Kolbe v. Hogan is well worth re litigation and I'd support financially. No Questions.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-127-petition.pdf
fabsroman
Ultimate Member
Sadly, Kolbe has already been denied by SCOTUS. So, that avenue was pursued as far as it could go. Not sure if it can be pursued further after somebody is arrested and found guilty for violating the assault weapon ban. My guess would be that, at that point, it could go through the appeals process again. Of course, the District Court and the 4th Circuit will just uphold the current precedent if that occurs. Question would be whether SCOTUS would take the case.
Which cases/plaintiffs involving each of those issues would you consider the deciding factor on how to draw each of those prospective lines? Be specific. In order to be fighting, you have to actually have a fight. Is there an active fight? Would you personally enter any and every fight you could find a way to enter, even knowing with certainty that you will lose and (worse) make future, more winnable fights, lost causes as a result? We draw the line at what's rational, here in the real world, where actual humans in actual cases and sitting as judges in real courts will be involved and impact the strategizing.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Maybe from another circuit?
https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/02/...-certiorari-in-another-second-amendment-case/
