- Nov 11, 2009
- 31,008
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.
We should all mail shoe laces to the ATF.
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).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
Had the actual proposed regulation been published yet?
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.
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!
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?
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!
This proposed rule will be shot down! No pun intended.
I'd be more worried at the State level.
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?
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
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.
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
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