glock27 wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:40 am
Is there a date set that will make them illegal?
Not positive, but I don’t think so.
Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:39 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
I’ve heard rumors that GOA is going to try and litigate this. I wish them luck, but I’m not hopeful.
I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t think we’re going to have a positive outcome here, and the BEST we can hope for is that SCOTUS will judge it to be a “taking” and order ATF to compensate bumpstock owners for the loss of their property.
Accounted for in the rule, unless it is just an "oh, so sorry, you (the public) must destroy these without compensation and just suck it up."
The estimate includes costs to the public for loss of property ($102,470,977); costs of forgone future production and sales ($213,031,753); and costs for disposal ($5,448,330). Unquantified costs include lost employment, notification to bump-stock-type device owners of the need to destroy the bump-stock-type devices, and loss of future usage by the owners of bump-stock-type devices. ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this final rule. It is anticipated that the rule will cost $129,222,483 million in the first year (the year with the highest costs). This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy or modify all existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and opportunity cost of time.
read the wording, it’s a “so sorry, you’re just going to have to suck it up” situation. It does NOT specifically mention compensation ... just “loss to the public”, including any costs of destruction/modification and loss of unsellable inventory and opportunity cost. I read that as: “whoever has money in these things, either as a user or a seller, is going to take a loss”. It does NOT mention a specific loss to those who don’t have
one - which would at least imply
compensation. I think it is a safe bet that this will be a “sorry, you’re out of luck” taking.
...which casts this administration in a whole new light for me. Maybe they were right.... Orange Man bad. He could have easily blown it off and refused to take it up as an issue. He could have said something like “maybe this bears looking at down the road, but right now we have bigger fish to fry”. He chose to take it up. Same as the NRA. They could
have simply said, “we take no position for or against”. They chose to take it up. You don’t ALWAYS have to take a proactive approach. Sometimes, doing nothing is the best thing, because doing something
about “A” can create precedents for doing something down the road about “B” ... even though “B” wasn’t involved in a mass-shooting. For instance, banning bumpstocks being used as a justification for banning “sniper scopes”.
In the first novel of his “Enemies” trilogy, Matthew Bracken very believably hypothesizes a situation eerily similar to the Vegas shooting (which the book predates by several years), in which a mass shooting with an SKS is intitially
used as a pretext to banning all semiauto rifles, and then followed up with a ban magnifying optics, civilian use of “military” calibers, and utlimately
, ALL civilian firearms ownership.
If 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.
Sometimes fiction is just entertainment. Other times, it is written with the intent to wake people up and get them to open their eyes, and Bracken is on record saying that is his purpose with his books. After having first read the book years before, I’ve known since then that it was very plausibly a matter of time until someone
did something similar - as part of a conspiracy to begin disarming the public. Vegas eerily fits that bill, and new ATF regs coming down the pike now
do nothing but reinforce that belief. As Freud once said, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. But what is implied in that statement is that, sometimes it is NOT just a cigar ... it is something else. Maybe I am hyperventilating, but I don’t think I am, and I would LOVE to be wrong.