TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:46 pmIf you have never read the series, at least read the first book, “Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” (https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign- ... 0972831010). If you don’t read the prologue and the first four chapters of that book and make an immediate comparison to the Vegas shooting and what’s happening with bumpstocks....and where this is all headed, you’re blind. Yeah, it’s fiction, but it it is so predictive that you can’t ignore it....especially when the Vegas authorities seem to have gone out of their way to both hinder the investigation and bury evidence in that shooting, and to keep the details as opaque as possible.

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:29 pm This is very confusing!

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.

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.