I would like to get something in return for this ban. I don't care about bump stocks, but I do care about a lot of other stupid gun restrictions.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Unfortunately, rule making doesn't work that way. There's no horse trading like on the legislative side.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
I won't have time to dig into details until tonight, but talk amongst yourselves...
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-stock-ruling/
"ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling"
Hopefully some of the lawyers on the board can tell us what this really means.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Here's a stripped down version of the NCLA claims...
https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-ad...stocks-anyway/
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me at a bare minimum, those businesses who manufactured these things and were forced to shut down, now have grounds for a lawsuit. I could see this admission by the ATF costing them millions. I also think this is a excellent opportunity to look through past rulings by the ATF, and see where else they made rulings that were way, way, out of their lane..
The argument (and a good one, IMO) is that this is a violation of separation of powers: the ATF, as a law enforcement/regulatory agency, does not have the authority to create law or to interpret law--those are the purview of the legislature and judiciary, respectively. The legislature can redefine "machine gun" to include bump stocks, a jury can return a verdict of guilty in a bump stock case, and a court of appeals can uphold or overturn trial court rulings. The ATF can make arrests/submit charges, but their legal interpretation, even when drafted by agency attorneys, has no more significance than the opinion of any of us on this forum.
Interestingly enough, my personal opinion is that an ATF opinion is a double-edged sword in our favor: typically, the belief that something is legal when it's actually not (the legal term is "mistake of law") is not a defense that can be presented in court. The only exception is when the mistake of law is based on information provided by an agency charged with enforcing the law. So if the ATF says a bump stock is illegal, that doesn't make it so. However, if the ATF says that a bump stock (or an arm brace, etc.) is legal, and an individual is then charged for possession of a bump stock (or whatever), that individual can present information received from that agency as evidence as to why he/she thought his/her action was legal.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but just like Obama's pen and phone or Kamala Harris's threats of executive action after 100 days, my interpretation is that the bump stock "ban" can't be the final law of the land--that requires legislative action. Then again, it's an issue that will be decided by judges, so...
Feds overstepped here. Should be a slam dunk in court. DOJ had their marching orders and obeyed.
WA banned bumpstocks a few months before the ATF reached their decision. The difference is WA state had a buy back and the fed didn't. That was to address due process (being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law) set out 5A. Eminent domain (the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation) is the same principle) I've had some experience with that.
Yep, it will cost the taxpayer plenty when all the lawsuits are settled.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Bump stocks sales resume in Texas after ATF fails to file stay to stop reversal of ban
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...versal-of-ban/
WASHINGTON — Gun shops are selling bump stocks again in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi after federal regulators failed to file a motion for a stay, or to stop, a ruling that lifted a ban imposed after a Las Vegas rampage left 58 people dead.
The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which handles cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, struck down the federal ban from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ruling in January that only Congress has such authority.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
So what does Donald have to say about that? Tune into Fox News or Newsmax for an well reasoned statement on why Diane and Nancy aren't getting what they want in TX!
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age