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!
  • Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    We should all mail shoe laces to the ATF.

    Or send our bump stocks to Baron Frosh on Sept 30, then turn his sorry ass in to the Feds.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    Hopefully some gun rights group will file a lawsuit to get an injunction. I think a good lawsuit challenging this ruling would likely work. Kind of hard for the government to argue that the meaning of the law has changed since there was a tragedy and it's become politically expedient to say so.
     

    CrabcakesAndFootball

    Active Member
    Jun 14, 2017
    697
    The good news is there’s a million different ways for groups to challenge this rule under the Adminstrative Procedure Act that would enable a court to enjoin the rule from going into effect and wouldn’t require the court to reach the merits of the 2A issue.

    Edit: I guess whether that’s “good news” is open to interpretation, but it certainly leaves the rule more vulnerable to attack than a statute passed by the Congress.
     
    Last edited:

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    The good news is there’s a million different ways for groups to challenge this rule under the Adminstrative Procedure Act that would enable a court to enjoin the rule from going into effect and wouldn’t require the court to reach the merits of the 2A issue.

    Edit: I guess whether that’s “good news” is open to interpretation, but it certainly leaves the rule more vulnerable to attack than a statute passed by the Congress.
    For irony's sake (and to vex Kamala Harris), wonder if it can be filed in the 9th Circuit. Another opportunity for them to stop Trump (per se).

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    Had the actual proposed regulation been published yet?

    It is still a "proposed rule" however the final rule is supposed to be announced within the next several days according to the article that I posted in this thread last night. If so then this unconstitutional wet dream may be seeing another day in court.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Hopefully some gun rights group will file a lawsuit to get an injunction. I think a good lawsuit challenging this ruling would likely work. Kind of hard for the government to argue that the meaning of the law has changed since there was a tragedy and it's become politically expedient to say so.

    If we were Jim Aolcosta a federal judge would rule in a few days. Thousand of gun owners 2A rights have to wait for years though.
     

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    If we were Jim Aolcosta a federal judge would rule in a few days. Thousand of gun owners 2A rights have to wait for years though.

    Wait for years and also, how many people will be arrested during that time? The biggest part that I hate about all of this.... this ruling will open up the flood gates for a lot of other parts and accessories to be deemed "illegal" at one's wishes somewhere along the line. As an AR builder, I am sure that you can appreciate the absurdity of this "proposed rule".
     

    IDFInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 21, 2013
    926
    Nomad
    Guys there is nothing to worry about at a Federal level. Did you guys even read the new proposed rule?

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

    From the proposed final rule:

    "In general, bump-stock-type devices—including those currently on the market with the characteristics described above—are designed to channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths."

    Yeah this crap rule won't hold up! :lol:
    This proposed rule will be shot down! No pun intended.
    I'd be more worried at the State level.
     

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    Guys there is nothing to worry about at a Federal level. Did you guys even read the new proposed rule?

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

    From the proposed final rule:

    "In general, bump-stock-type devices—including those currently on the market with the characteristics described above—are designed to channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths."

    Yeah this crap rule won't hold up! :lol:
    This proposed rule will be shot down! No pun intended.
    I'd be more worried at the State level.

    Isn't the NRA on board with this ruling change? Who's going to fight for us?
     

    Melnic

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    15,282
    HoCo
    Guys there is nothing to worry about at a Federal level. Did you guys even read the new proposed rule?

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

    From the proposed final rule:

    "In general, bump-stock-type devices—including those currently on the market with the characteristics described above—are designed to channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths."

    Yeah this crap rule won't hold up! :lol:
    This proposed rule will be shot down! No pun intended.
    I'd be more worried at the State level.


    shot down by who? a judge? I'm not exactly putting much faith in judges now adays.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    Does anyone find it odd that the MD case was ruled on right before the Fed ruling. Is the MD law found legit because one may simply move their Parts out of state?
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    Does anyone find it odd that the MD case was ruled on right before the Fed ruling. Is the MD law found legit because one may simply move their Parts out of state?

    A bunch of reasons actually. The most scary of which is
    Plaintiffs provide no authority for the proposition that Maryland law recognizes, under Article 24, “vested” rights to possess tangible personal property like rapid fire trigger activators in perpetuity

    There is no personal property in MD.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Decision today. We lost. Attached. We are considering our appeal options. A notice of appeal is due in 30 days. Needless to say, we do not agree with the Court's decision.

    This is plenty to read in this law review. page 318....

    In an earlier draft, Dickinson had written that ―the Governor ordered the Arms deposited as aforesaid that they might be preserved for their Owners, to be seized by a Body of soldiers . . . .‖190 Drafts by Jefferson complained that ―their arms . . . deposited with their own magistrates to be preserved as their property were immediately seised by a body of armed men under orders from the [said General].

    ‖191 On July 8, the Continental Congress followed up with an open letter to the people of Great Britain complaining that ―your Ministers (equal Foes to British and American freedom) have added to their former Oppressions an Attempt to reduce us by the Sword to a base and abject submission.‖192 As a result: On the Sword, therefore, we are compelled to rely for Protection. Should Victory declare in your Favour, yet Men trained to Arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy Conquest. Of this at least we are assured, that our Struggle will be glorious, our Success certain; since even in Death we shall find that Freedom which in Life you forbid us to enjoy.

    For all to read is "V Some Lessons for Today" starting at page 326 written by David B. Kopel
     

    Attachments

    • How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Prec.pdf
      740.3 KB · Views: 130
    Last edited:

    sonoramic

    Charlie dont surf.
    Dec 16, 2011
    61
    Millersville
    A bunch of reasons actually. The most scary of which is

    There is no personal property in MD.


    Why did they quote Article 24, and not 17 also????

    Article 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

    http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs-current/current-constitution-maryland-us.pdf
     

    md_al

    Active Member
    Apr 25, 2014
    724
    Middle River
    Why did they quote Article 24, and not 17 also????

    Article 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

    http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs-current/current-constitution-maryland-us.pdf

    This is a good point. In my case my sister would not even allow me to order magazines and have them sent to her address. Much less for her to store a bumpstock or a binary trigger. :mad54:
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Why did they quote Article 24, and not 17 also????

    Article 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such Laws, and by them only declared criminal, are oppressive, unjust and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be imposed, or required.

    http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs-current/current-constitution-maryland-us.pdf

    Yeah, I was hoping somebody else would reply to this, but since nobody has, I will reply.

    Article 17, pertaining to ex post facto laws, will not work in this case. They are not making a prior act (i.e., the purchase of the bump stock) illegal. They are making the continued possession of the bump stock illegal. The law was passed before it actually took effect, giving people that had previously purchased a bump stock, binary trigger, etc. time to either get rid of it before 10/1/2018 or apply to the ATF for approval before 10/1/2018. Now, the law gives people additional time for the ATF approval (which is not going to happen) or it gives them time to dispose of the device before 10/1/2019.

    Article 17 would apply if they passed a law on 4/1/2018 making it illegal to have owned a bump stock, etc. on 1/1/2016 or to have purchased a bump stock before 1/1/2018. That would be an ex post facto law.

    The bump stock prohibition is not a retrospective law. It bans possession going forward from a date in the future. It makes the future act of continuing to possess the item a crime.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,248
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom