HB888 - grandfather clause for bump stocks

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,544
    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? :)

    Probably best if you own 51%, "shoot" me an offer. Looking at houses on Jekyll Island.
     

    Devil Dog

    Active Member
    Sep 20, 2013
    587
    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.
    Do you know the name of that case? I'd like to read it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     

    Devil Dog

    Active Member
    Sep 20, 2013
    587
    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
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    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”.
     

    Devil Dog

    Active Member
    Sep 20, 2013
    587
    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
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    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). “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?
     

    Devil Dog

    Active Member
    Sep 20, 2013
    587
    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
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    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.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    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.

    The banning of the AR-15 and 20 round mags did not make it to SCOTUS. The banning of one of the most popular and prevalent rifles in the US did not make it to SCOTUS and it did not survive the US District Court of Maryland or the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc. Granted, the ban was reversed at the 4th Circuit originally, but that was short lived.

    So, if the most prevalent and most popular rifle, an actual firearm, in the USA cannot get past the 4th Circuit and cannot get cert from SCOTUS, I have no idea how the bump stock ban will make it to SCOTUS. With a grandfather clause in place, the Takings Clause of either the USA or Maryland will not apply because nothing will be taken.

    I was going to buy a bump stock just because they are saying I cannot, but I am rethinking this. I bought so many firearms in 2013 that I never even wanted, just because they said NO, and the safes are chock full of them now and they get very little, if any, use. I want a bump stock, binary trigger, crank trigger, etc. even less than I want my 10th AR-15 or my 8th handgun. Now, a Beretta DT-11 or a Benelli Super Vinci is a different story.

    I do not agree with the bump stock ban, but trying to take it to SCOTUS is a waste of money. About as big a waste of money as some thought taking FSA2013 to referendum would have been.

    Might want to try a referendum on this bill in lieu of trying to take it to SCOTUS, unless Trump gets another appointment in place before now and when this lawsuit would arrive at SCTOUS' doorstep.

    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.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    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.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    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?
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Are you intimating that some how referendum would have been better?

    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.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    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.

    Yeah, and then we would get into the Takings Clause for those that already own these items. I have not dealt with the clause enough to know one way or another what happens when government makes a piece of property illegal to possess anymore.

    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.
     

    Abacab

    Member
    Sep 10, 2009
    2,644
    MD
    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.

    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.
     

    PowPow

    Where's the beef?
    Nov 22, 2012
    4,712
    Howard County
    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.

    The proposed ATF rule, as I read it, does not apply to binary triggers.
     

    PowPow

    Where's the beef?
    Nov 22, 2012
    4,712
    Howard County
    Oh, and the proposed ATF rule as I read it was full of BS. It's almost like Bloomberg gave them the text. Public safety, blah blah blah.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    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.

    Yeah, maybe so, maybe not. We'll never know though. Would have been nice to just get the vote tally so an informed decision could be made moving forward on exactly how far gone Maryland is when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and being able to defend itself.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,943
    Messages
    7,259,746
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom