Ammo For Sale

« « Why are anti-gun activists so violent? | Home | Gun Porn » »

Bumpity

Looks like the first attempt at a bump stock ban has been written up. They had to distort the law to do it. And after you read through the nonsense about the law, the section on the ban’s costs is amusing. And, no, current owners would not be compensated for destruction of property that is legal right now. But if that gets implemented, turns those owners into felons.

10 Responses to “Bumpity”

  1. mikee Says:

    So it violates several parts of the Constitution and will be repealed by the courts, eventually.
    I like it.

  2. Richard Says:

    With no compensation, it seems like a fairly obvious taking lawsuit. But the fake judges can twist anything.

  3. JTC Says:

    There won’t be any confiscating going on, as I’ve said many times it’s the creating of thousands of felons out of heretofore good law-abiding citizens they’re after. And it’s a test case for guns and mags that will be equally poorly defined, creating *millions* of felons.

    Of course all will be be challenged, but in the meantime just consider what rights are forfeited by felons and what powers over them are handed to gov. Some chilling shit that will change your mind about whether you care about a bump-stock “ban”.

  4. Mike W. Says:

    They pushed one through here in DE, and the Dems in our general assembly basically said “So what if we turn people into felons, I don’t really think it’s a big deal” Another one said he didn’t care about the constitutional issues because “we need to get them off the streets”

  5. Sigivald Says:

    Straight bans aren’t a taking under any extant Federal precedent, though.

    Confiscating for the government’s use is a taking – “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation“. The “public use” part there is in the plainest English, and the motivation (to keep the State from enriching/supporting itself on the public’s property by confiscating it for its own use rather than buying it) is clear … and not applicable to a police-power “ban on owning a thing”.

    (See e.g. ; “The court held that there was no compensable taking, because the property was not taken for “public use.” Rather, it was taken pursuant to the police power conferred on ATF by Congress in the law banning the sale of machine guns

    If there’s a Constitutional issue here it’s a straight 2A one, no takings clause.)

  6. Skip Says:

    Ex Post Facto?

  7. Ron W Says:

    @Skip, yes, for any legislator or judge who has even an elementary education….”no export facto law shall be passed” (Article I, Section 9.3)

    Violations of their oath of office to the Constitution by elected officials and judges should be the felony.

  8. Heath J Says:

    It’s a dumb range toy, but it’s MY dumb range toy.

    They can’t have it.

  9. Erik Says:

    So here is the problem I see. An ATF opinion is just that. Usually not written by attorneys. Just because they said they were legal, they are now saying in fact these have been illegal since 1934. Everyone on YouTube has given the ATF evidence for their own arrest.

  10. JTC Says:

    Not just youtubers…they don’t care about these things, they are unregulated accessories and obviously they can’t track them down, but they do have the useful purpose of making you a felon to use for other nefarious purposes (ie warrantless search, no guns bought own owned, no vote in some cases)…

    But if they can make this stick with this generalized description then your AR’s and mags are next. That’s the real prize, and they DO know what you bought, when and where. You have just handed all of your Constitutional rights to them. There will be challenges, but can you afford to defend yourself? Wonder if the carry insurance outfits will step up with coverage?

    You say those NICS runs ain’t registration? Hah. Cute.