srephwed
Active Member
Blue arrow did not work. Got a different option?^^Click the blue arrow in above quote and it will take you to a special place that has CAD plans for a 3D printed bump device that is grip based
Blue arrow did not work. Got a different option?^^Click the blue arrow in above quote and it will take you to a special place that has CAD plans for a 3D printed bump device that is grip based
I hope I am not violating Rack's edict, but if someone wants to sell me a part ownership share of their bumpstock, I will surely be a plaintiff as well.
Fabsroman, are you running the group by on these?
Do you know the name of that case? I'd like to read it.True, but even the liberal 9th circuit struck that down as an illegal taking. Among other things. That opinion is floating around and no doubt had some bearing on this.
I hate to be "that guy" but I don't have much confidence that a 2A attack on a bump stock ban will be successful.
If you read Heller, the door is left open to ban certain (as of yet unnamed) firearms, and bump stocks aren't even firearms. They are non-essential accessories (as opposed to say, banning magazines or all triggers).
So, I don't see getting 5 Supremes to overturn a likely lower-court ruling upholding such a ban.
But I could be wrong - God knows I've misread these things before.
Also, as I've opined before, a ban on bump stocks would NOT be an unlawful ex post facto law even if it lacks a grandfather clause.
However, I'm not opining here about a takings clause violation.
Just my two cents.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Yeah, how so?Hmmm....the only part of your post that was internally consistent, had validity, and was substantive, was this line at the end : “Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk”.
I hate to be "that guy" but I don't have much confidence that a 2A attack on a bump stock ban will be successful.
If you read Heller, the door is left open to ban certain (as of yet unnamed) firearms, and bump stocks aren't even firearms. They are non-essential accessories (as opposed to say, banning magazines or all triggers).
So, I don't see getting 5 Supremes to overturn a likely lower-court ruling upholding such a ban.
But I could be wrong - God knows I've misread these things before.
Also, as I've opined before, a ban on bump stocks would NOT be an unlawful ex post facto law even if it lacks a grandfather clause.
However, I'm not opining here about a takings clause violation.
Just my two cents.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Hmmm....the only part of your post that was internally consistent, had validity, and was substantive, was this line at the end : “Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk”.
Yeah, how so?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
1. Wtf are you talking about? Rifle scopes? Turning mine in? I have no clue what you are talking about, but that makes two of us.1). “Nonessential accessories = rifle scopes...let us know when you are turning yours in to comply with a future law.
2). Five SCOTUS Justices overturn unconstitutional schemes routinely, but you just float your feelings. Yeah, go with that.
3). Maryland has a takings clause, yet you talk about it not being unlawful, unless there is a takings clause. Do the Hokey Pokey much?
1. Wtf are you talking about? Rifle scopes? Turning mine in? I have no clue what you are talking about, but that makes two of us.
I'm not turning in $hit and I said nothing about anyone turning in anything.
2. I'm offering an opinion that I don't think five justices will find a 2A violation of an item that isn't even a firearm, or necessary to use a firearm (like a trigger, ammunition, or magazines). You've begged the question that banning bump stocks - a frigging accessory - is unconstitutional and will therefore automatically be overturned. Ok, expand on that and tell us how it is unconstitutional. Cite caselaw and tell us how you accomplish the Rule of Five.
3. Read much? Go back and read my post. I said I'm not opining on the takings clause (federal or state). So again, wtf are you talking about?
It is trolls like you that make people not want to post on these boards. Spouting off on crap you clearly know nothing about and making up stuff that other people didn't even write.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sorry to hear that an opinion other than yours on an opinion forum spoils your appetite to post. Malox much?
Sent from my Left Brain 8675309 using TapaIphone.
I remember Lou45 on 10/1/2013 talking to a bunch of us at Red, Hot & Blue in Laurel about how we were going the litigation route on FSA2013 in lieu of the referendum route because we do not ask for permission to exercise our Right. Well, now we can reflect on how that process went.
Are you intimating that some how referendum would have been better?
The federal government is attempting to classify Bump Stocks as “machineguns,” thereby making them “firearms”.
“Machineguns” are NFA items.
The rules Sessions propose provide no lawful path to possess functional Bump Stocks. If the rules stick, they must be immediately destroyed, surrendered or made inoperable.
I think it’s extremely unlikely SCOTUS would provide 2A protections for NFA items. Miller and Heller reflect that and itd be pretty wild for them to ignore prior precedent.
Well, it sure would not have been any worse, now would it. Of course, it is water under the bridge and we will never know whether it would have been or not. However, we sure know now that litigation wasn't a winner either. The referendum would have just been another bite at the apple. I beat this horse to death in 2013 and part of 2014. End of the day, maybe it would have allowed Marylanders that normally vote on the democrat side of other issues, but are 2A supporters, to vote specifically on something 2A related.
There are plenty of liberals on this board. I know, because I shoot with them. Thing is, they vote on more than a single issue at every primary and general election and 2A is not their only issue. Heck, I am not even a one issue voter. However, I would vote pro-2A every day of the week if I was voting on gun control law, and not for a specific candidate that stands for 50 different causes/issues.
As far as I am concerned, the entire federal rule regarding bump stocks, binary triggers, etc. is complete BS. Good thing we elected Trump. Things could be so much worse if Hillary was elected. Written somewhat sarcastically and somewhat truthfully/factually.
This is a fantasy. They couldn't beat the handgun roster at referendum nearly 30 years ago with a far better demographic picture. An "assault weapons ban" on the ballot in 2014? Not a snowball's chance in hell.