Not unless you're required to turn it in without compensation. If you have the option to modify it to comply with the law, there's no taking.Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:36 amBut 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.deplorable wrote: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.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.
I agree the ATF has no business violating any laws at all, but they're part of the deep state and they routinely violate laws and get away with it, just like the FBI.