TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

ScottDLS 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.

Serious question. Are bump stocks still for sale from the manufacturers? I really might like to get one...even if I have to give it up later.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?