esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
MSI Goes To the Supreme Court!
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bump stocks msi
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!
Member Benefits:
Tungsten
Ultimate Member
Awesome news! I am truly hopeful the SC will stop punting on these 2A cases
buellsfurn
Ultimate Member
Thank You MSI
- Mar 22, 2019
- 2,365
Thank you Mark for all your personal time in the legal research and writing, and to our courageous MSI Board for voting to go forward to SCOTUS.
Help me understand the strategy, here. I understand it's about the Takings-ness of the Maryland law, but since the bump stocks are currently, by way of ATF rule/reg, naughty, is there a solid reason for the time and expense on this particular fight? Will a win on the takings issue in some way impact the non-Maryland, wider federal issue on this front? Looking to understand the big picture that's driving effort on this one.
Maryland didn't just ban bump stocks. . . And they way MD did it will open the door for our overlords to take any other property they deem unacceptable with no compensation.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This ^^^^^^
A valuable pursuit, then. But it’s aimed at compensation during a taking, not the underlying problem of the policy position (confiscatory aspirations/instincts) that inspires the taking in the first place, right?
Or is the thinking that by forcing compensation into the mix, they’d back away - because of the risk of taxpayer outrage or just budget pain - at the expense such confiscations would then represent ... and thus head them off on practicality, rather than principle?
****This has also been my understanding. Basically, taking legally purchased property without just compensation.
Wynter
Active Member
This is great news.
randomuser
Ultimate Member
Some people have guns that are priceless. All of mine are. Not to mention, they are not for sale.
A democrat/gungrabber giving you money for something they take from you isn't compensation. It's theft.
What If I give out ham sandwiches and take 20 bucks out of the pocket of everyone I force to take my sandwich? I compensated them, so taking the 20 bucks isn't theft.
Kicken Wing
Snakes and Sparklers
Thanks for leading the fight! Your leadership is greatly appreciated! I just renewed Saturday and received the email on Sunday.
Not debating that. I have no doubt that if mine were taken under such a plan, I would be grossly under compensated. But that’s not what I was talking about.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Yup. It is nothing short of amazing how attitudes change when they have to pay for it. Budget is king in Annapolis.
- Dec 30, 2012
- 6,992
Are we able to observe when this is tried?
50 seats are available, first come/ first served, for each argument day at SCOTUS. There is no live audiovisual for SCOTUS arguments and SCOTUS conferences (where they decide cert petitions) are strictly limited to the Justices themselves.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
thomfantomas
Crna Ovca
This has zero to do with awb,magazine ban nor ccw.... -_-
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Actually it is very similar to the Just Compensation Takings argument that was successful in dct in Duncan, the suit challenging the mag ban in California. There are millions of mags in MD. State is not likely to ban possession of them, ala California, if they have to pay for them. It will also help make the GA think twice before they ban possession of the modern sporting rifles that they grandfathered in 2013. AND don't think for a second that they wouldn't do precisely that. Plus, under the MD Constitution, if the statute doesn't provide for payment, it can be enjoined in its entirety.
