SCOTUS Kills Bumpstock Appeal

[biku324]

I don't think this fits as a 2A thread, but mods please move if it does.

"The Supreme Court on Monday once again declined to hear a challenge to the federal ban on “bump stock” devices that modify semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly.

The court’s move leaves intact a Trump-era measure enacted in 2017 after a gunman in Las Vegas used the rapid-fire accessory to carry out the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history.

The court’s refusal to take up the appeal dealt a blow to the challengers, a group that acquired bump stocks when they were legal. The petitioners argued that the government ban effectively deprived them of property without fair compensation, in violation of constitutional protections."

 

[LVSteve]

No surprise there. Perhaps the complainants should have targeted the ATF for their initial ruling that said bump-stocks were OK. I don't know anyone with an AR that thought it made sense.

 

[JJEH]

Bump stock are among the most stupid firearms accessories I have seen, but the ban itself can be seen an infringement on the 2A.

 

[Beemerguy53]

There always seem to be people exploiting loopholes in the law, who spoil it for the rest of us.

I've never owned a bumpstock, or fired a gun equipped with one, but from what I can see, they don't improve accuracy or reliability, they're not necessary in order to operate a firearm, and they're not part of any firearm's original design.

The only reason bumpstocks were invented was to circumvent the law without technically breaking it. I agree that the ban was a violation of the 5th Amendment, because owners were deprived of the legal use of their property without just compensation. I don't see a 2nd Amendment issue here.

 

[JJEH]

I've never owned a bumpstock, or fired a gun equipped with one, but from what I can see, they don't improve accuracy or reliability, they're not necessary in order to operate a firearm, and they're not part of any firearm's original design.
[...]
I agree that the ban was a violation of the 5th Amendment, because owners were deprived of the legal use of their property without just compensation. I don't see a 2nd Amendment issue here.

I'm willing to bet that, if you exchange the word bumpstock with suppressor, the national response would have been different.

 

[biku324]

I agree that the ban was a violation of the 5th Amendment, because owners were deprived of the legal use of their property without just compensation. I don't see a 2nd Amendment issue here.

There was no 'taking' by the govt of the bumpstocks, so eminent domain is inapplicable.

 

[BSA1]

Oh boy! This doesn’t bode well for AR Pistol owners when the BATF releases yet another definition of AR pistols and pistol braces expected next month.

 

[delcrossv]

There always seem to be people exploiting loopholes in the law, who spoil it for the rest of us.

I've never owned a bumpstock, or fired a gun equipped with one, but from what I can see, they don't improve accuracy or reliability, they're not necessary in order to operate a firearm, and they're not part of any firearm's original design.

The only reason bumpstocks were invented was to circumvent the law without technically breaking it. I agree that the ban was a violation of the 5th Amendment, because owners were deprived of the legal use of their property without just compensation. I don't see a 2nd Amendment issue here.

And the only reason they were circumventing the law , was because the Hughes Amendment is stupid and unconstitutional.
But for that, people could buy and register new automatics under the 1934 NFA with all the appropriate vetting/licensure.

Government created the problem.

 

[biku324]

I'm sorry; I don't see a lack of the universal ability to own fully automatic weapons as problematic. Others may disagree, but obviously not enough to get the law repealed.

 

[LVSteve]

There was no 'taking' by the govt of the bumpstocks, so eminent domain is inapplicable.

I'm sure a half competent tort lawyer could have a lot of fun with that.

 

[Patrick L]

Just mail 'em a check and move on.

Yeah I realize as gun owners we need to hang together or we hang separately, but there are just some things that don't make this fight easy. The patriots among us will no doubt ostracize me for my beliefs, but there it is.

 

[biku324]

I'm sure a half competent tort lawyer could have a lot of fun with that.

Give it a try!

 

[LVSteve]

Give it a try!

I only play a lawyer on TV.

 

[boykinlp]

The court’s refusal to take up the appeal dealt a blow to the challengers, a group that acquired bump stocks when they were legal. The petitioners argued that the government ban effectively deprived them of property without fair compensation, in violation of constitutional protections."

This is what makes me mad. If the government deems something legal, and then changes their mind, they should have to pay fair compensation to the owner. Why should the owner be penalized for something that was legal when they bought it? Maybe they should have originally given the legality of the Bumpstock or AR pistol more thought. Where am I wrong?
Larry

 

[DWalt]

Does anyone else remember when little spring-loaded trigger devices that were supposed to do about the same thing as a bump stock were common sights at gun shows? Are they treated like bump stocks today?

 

[smoothshooter]

Bump stocks make about as much sense as AR-15 “ pistols “.

 

[Skeet 028]

Just a question.. How many have actually shot either a machine gun or any other full auto firearm. I have and can say it can be a lot of fun. That said I don't have a bumpstock or an AR "pistol". Don't want either but the gummit created the bumpstock issue and they should either accept responsibility or allow them to be considered a full auto and allow registration for free. Personally also I think any honest US citizen should have the right to own full auto firearms. Now to the other side of the issues. Full auto firearms are very good for certain things...war of course. But I can say I have turned quite a bit of money into a lot of noise in a very short time. Nothing like a Thompson or a BAR. . On full auto though they are very hard to shoot really accurately by the average person and they are very expensive to shoot . To buy also but that is the fault of the gummit. So I don't really need any full auto...but it's still really neat...if you can afford to shoot 'em

 

[biku324]

I've spent a good deal of time helping the Philippine National Police Maritime Special Operations Units (Bongao, Tawi-Tawi and Puerto Princesa, Palawan) with M-16 to M4 5.56 variants, Tavors, M-60s, Negev NG-7SFs, and M240B LMGs. None are appropriate for civilian use of any kind, nor even for US LE use, USCG excepted.

 

[dockmurgw]

I say EVERYTHING should be legal and open for all to own without restrictions, permits or regulations. I just read half a dozen road rage shooting incident stories in the news in places scattered across the country. After reading a few I got bored, so some more full autos out there would really kick the road rage shooting news up a notch and make them more interesting.

 

[BSA1]

I say EVERYTHING should be legal and open for all to own without restrictions, permits or regulations.

The Libertarian in me agrees with you.

The practical part of me knows that really good lawyers are very expensive and it takes a long time for a case to make it to The Supreme Court. Then there is no guarantee that the Court will hear the case.

I personally would like to see Miller reheard by the Supreme Court.