TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:57 pm Trump just said a few minutes ago he and his admin are just a couple weeks away from being able to "get rid of " and ban bump stocks. If you want one, you better get it now. Now sure if they will be grandfathered or not.

The comments came a few minutes ago when he was discussing the new revised trade deal with Mexico and Canada on Fox News. Will post a link when I find it.

MechAg94 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.

I agree a lawsuit challenging this would be a good thing. I don't think the NRA will do it. I am not sure about other groups.

spectre wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.

If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though.

spectre wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

deplorable wrote:

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

crazy2medic wrote:If a standard AR stock can be bump fired does that make it a Bump fire stock? If not then how do you separate the two? A stock that is intended to be bump fired and a stock that can be bump fired?

The devices used in Las Vegas and the other bump-stock-type devices currently available on the market all utilize essentially the same functional design. They are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing “rapid fire” operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed. They are configured with a sliding shoulder stock molded (or otherwise attached) to a pistol-grip/handle (or “chassis”) that includes an extension ledge (or “finger rest”) on which the shooter places the trigger finger while shooting the firearm. The devices also generally include a detachable rectangular receiver module (or “bearing interface”) that is placed in the receiver well of the device's pistol-grip/handle to assist in guiding and regulating the recoil of the firearm when fired.


These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.

BBYC wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking.

Not in the slightest.

Banning them is not taking them, unless people are required to turn them into the BATF and not allowed to destroy or disable them. Or export them.

I agree lawmaking by bureaucrats rather than the legislature is unconstitutional but SCOTUS seems to disagree with us. The CFR is filled with "laws" that weren't passed by Congress. That ship has sailed. I would be ecstatic if SCOTUS torpedoes that ship and rules all agency-made rules and regulations null and void for people who don't work for those agencies. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm also not holding my breath waiting for SCOTUS to rule NFA unconstitutional.

deplorable wrote:

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

Misfit Child wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If it comes to it, I'm sure Texas can just become a sanctuary state and refuse to cooperate with the feds on enforcement of any gun laws we disagree with.

Is that the same Texas Legislature that didn't pass either HB 560 or HB 1911 last year?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jason812 wrote:If this goes through, what is the government prepared to do when nobody turns their bump stocks in to be destroyed?

How can they be dumb enough to claim "Prevents criminal usage of bump-stock-type devices?" I would like to find out how many illegally converted firearms are confiscated or recovered during a crime each year. I'm talking full semi converted not a bump stock. If the number is more than zero, than the machine gun ban didn't prevent criminal usage did it?

Also, if the ATF already acknowledges that a person can use a rubber band, stick, or a belt loop and their finger to do the same thing, what does this really accomplish?

It “sends a message” ....... “for the children”.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that there ARE automatic weapons that aren’t on the registry. I know of two different people back in California when I lived there, who own unregistered fully-automatic .45 ACP submachine guns - one a M1921 Thompson, and the other a M3 “grease gun”. They were both WW2 “take-homes” that were brought back from the war, illegally, and simply kept secret among family members. The guns were never registered, and as far as the gov’t is concerned, they don’t exist, and were probably listed as combat losses.

There isn’t an existing registry of bump stock owners, and even if the gov’t was able to track down every single credit card transaction which paid for one, there would be no way to account for the ones that were purchased with cash (another reason the gov’t doesn’t want you to have cash). There is also no way for the gov’t to definitively track down the ones paid for by credit card.

• ”Sir, our investigation to account for all bump stocks sold revealed that you bought one from [insert dealer here] and paid for it with your ATM Visa card. We also show that after ATF mandated the destruction or turn-in of all bump fire stocks, you did not turn yours in. Can you please explain that?”
  
  “Absolutely! I sold it at a gun show about 6 or 8 months before the Las Vegas shooting. I didn’t like it, so I got rid of it. I’m sure glad now that I did.”
  
  “Sir, can you tell us anything about the person you sold it to?”
  
  “Not really. I don’t mean to be uncooperative, but you know, at the time it just wasn’t that big of a deal. It was legal to buy, own, and sell one at the time, so I just didn’t think that much of it. I went to the gun show intending to sell it, overheard a guy say that he hoped to find one for sale at the show, and I piped up and said I had one right there in my backpack for sale. I let it go for $100 or so in cash if I recall correctly, which I probably spent on beer and peanuts or something not long after. Like I said, it was all legal at the time. Heck, I didn’t even bother with a bill of sale, since it wasn’t a gun.......just an accessory part for a gun. I couldn’t even give you a name because I never asked, and he never volunteered it. I put my AR up in the safe for a while until I could get around to buying another buttstock for it....which took a while....but I didn’t miss it because I own four of them, and the other two had regular stocks on them, so I shot them until I got around to replacing that bump stock. In hindsight, maybe I should have done a bill of sale and I could have spared you guys a bit of trouble, but like I said, it just wasn’t a big deal at the time. Boy howdy, highlight really is 20/20, isn’t it?”

My guess is that a LOT of them will end up buried somewhere against the day that the flag goes up. Or not. I personally believe that the average rifleman can be a lot more effective with semiauto fire in most situations.

MechAg94 wrote:I can't help nitpicking a bit, but I believe this just bans the stocks, not the entire rifle. Put a normal stock/grip on and the rifle is fine. Possession of the stock would be illegal. Still declaring a previously legal device to be illegal simply via a new interpretation of the same law so most of the argument is still the same.