md_al
Active Member
A dangerous precedent... after the triggers will go the laser sights then scopes, then the red dots then the mag size then finally the semi automatics.
A dangerous precedent... after the triggers will go the laser sights then scopes, then the red dots then the mag size then finally the semi automatics.
First they came for our triggers.
Can someone please sum up for me where we stand? I don't have time to read through 121 pages. Sorry for being lazy. Is there any chance to appeal or any chance of things going our way before Oct 2019?
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.
IANAL, but if anyone ever gets pinched by this law, just remember that you had to drive out of MD to get your rapid fire trigger activator because you couldn't posses it in this state. When caught you were proceeding straight from the place you kept said device to a state on the other side of MD to do some shooting. FOPA would then apply.
Fabs / anyone, is this a fair statement in this regard: feds = Trump Administration.Everybody is always brilliant until the questions start being asked really quickly. Best advice, take the 5th and think it over before saying anything. Then, tell your attorney what you were doing after you have had some time to think about where you were coming from and where you were going to, which of course would always be truthful. Granted, you would also have to take the stand under oath to use this alibi in court, and while under oath you would be subject to cross examination by the prosecution.
Oh yeah, and your FOPA justification will be a lot harder if you are discovered at home with the rapid fire trigger device, and it will be even harder if the feds make bump stocks illegal AND your rapid fire trigger advice happens to be a bump stock. Don't think FOPA would be applicable in that situation.
Prisons are full of people that thought they would never get caught.
Fabs / anyone, is this a fair statement in this regard: feds = Trump Administration.
Fabs / anyone, is this a fair statement in this regard: feds = Trump Administration.
Just feeling a little beat up here in MD and wondering if the "feds" are going down a similar path. Many will say the pistol brace was a positive for 2A and I hate to say it but the previous admin gave it a pass.
Fabs / anyone, is this a fair statement in this regard: feds = Trump Administration.
Just feeling a little beat up here in MD and wondering if the "feds" are going down a similar path.
From what I understand, the re-examination of bump stock status was directed by the White House (along with strong hints about what the desired outcome should be)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/final-bump-stock-ban/index.html
Time will tell, but that article is from November 28th. Granted, it is from CNN, so take it with a grain of salt.
End of the day, I don't think Trump is any huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
Heck, one of Trump's campaign promises was that he would undo Obama's ATF Rule 41f/p as soon as he took office. Here we are nearly 2 years after the date he took office and Rule 41f/p is still the law. I posted about this in the "Thoughts on Trump" page, but I understand if it was missed because I rarely ever go to that monstrosity anymore.
Yup. The guy is not our friend.
Sure, his judge appointments are going to be more 2A friendly than Hillary's would have been, but that's by dint of the pool he's drawing from, which was presented to him by the party.
Trump himself is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.
Or, could it be that he's playing both ends against the middle? Could he be stacking the courts with pro 2A judges and playing the game of a moderate in regard to the 2A while he's in office?
I know I'm probably going to jinx it, but he's talked about the bump stock ban since the LV shooting. He has said many times he's going to have a decision shortly. Well, if it's all that important to him, I do believe he could have gotten those results within 6 months of his first statement.
As of yet, there's been absolutely no movement on it.
Is he playing the anti 2A folks, putting off HIS decision indefinitely?
Fabs / anyone, is this a fair statement in this regard: feds = Trump Administration.
Just feeling a little beat up here in MD and wondering if the "feds" are going down a similar path. Many will say the pistol brace was a positive for 2A and I hate to say it but the previous admin gave it a pass.
From a 2A perspective, the judges he's seated in federal, circuit, and SCOTUS slots are from an entirely different planet than the ones you'd see if Hillary had won. It's impossible to overstate the difference and the importance to our cause.